MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549003107 · doi:10.1071/pp01217

Are crassulacean acid metabolism and C <i>4</i> photosynthesis incompatible?

2002· article· en· W1549003107 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Plant Physiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrassulacean acid metabolismPhotosynthesisBiologyKalanchoeVascular bundlePortulacaPhosphoenolpyruvate carboxylaseC4 photosynthesisBotanyMesembryanthemum crystallinumPlant physiologyEcophysiologyMetabolismBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper originates from a presentation at the IIIrd International Congress on Crassulacean Acid Metabolism, Cape Tribulation, Queensland, Australia, August 2001. Despite sharing a similar metabolism, crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) and C4 photosynthesis are not known to occur in identical species, with the exception of Portulaca spp. In Portulaca, C4 and weak CAM photosynthesis occur in distinct regions of the leaf, rather than in the same cells. This is in marked contrast to the situation in most CAM species where C3 and CAM photosynthesis are active in the same cell over the course of a day and growing season. The lack of CAM and C4 photosynthesis in identical cells of a plant indicates these photosynthetic pathways are incompatible. Incompatibilities between CAM and C4 photosynthesis could have a number of biochemical, anatomical and evolutionary explanations. Biochemical incompatibilities could result from the requirement for spatial separation of C3 and C4 phases in C4 plants versus temporal separation in CAM plants. In C4 plants, regulatory systems coordinate mesophyll and bundle sheath metabolism, with light intensity being the major environmental signal. In CAM plants, a circadian oscillator coordinates day and night phases of CAM. The requirement for rapid intercellular transport in C4 plants may be incompatible with the intracellular transport and storage needs of CAM. For example, the large vacuole required for malate storage in CAM could impede metabolite diffusion between mesophyll and bundle sheath cells in C4 plants. Anatomical barriers could also exist because both CAM and the C4 pathway require distinct leaf anatomies for efficient function. Efficient function of the C4 pathway generally requires an outer layer of cells specialized for phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) carboxylation and regeneration and an inner layer for CO2 accumulation and refixation, while CAM species require enlarged vacuoles and tight cell packing. In evolutionary terms, barriers preventing CAM and C4 photosynthesis in the same species may be the initial steps in the respective evolutionary pathways from C3 ancestors. The first steps in C4 photosynthesis are related to scavenging photorespiratory CO2 via localization of glycine decarboxylase in the bundle sheath cells. The initial steps in CAM evolution are associated with the scavenging of respiratory CO2 at night by PEP carboxylation. In each, simplified versions of the specialized anatomy may need to be present for the evolutionary sequence to begin. For C4 evolution, enhanced bundle sheath size may be required in C3 ancestors; for CAM evolution, succulence may be required. Thus, before CAM or C4 photosynthesis began to evolve, the outcome of the evolutionary experiment may have been predetermined.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it