Cell wall extension results in the coordinate separation of parallel microfibrils: evidence from scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enlargement of the cell wall requires separation of cellulose microfibrils, mediated by proteins such as expansin; according to the multi-net growth hypothesis, enlargement passively reorients microfibrils. However, at the molecular scale, little is known about the specific movement of microfibrils. To find out, we examined directly changes in microfibril orientation when walls were extended slowly in vitro under constant load (creep). Frozen-thawed cucumber hypocotyl segments were strained by 20-30% by incubation in pH 4.5 buffer or by incubation of heat-inactivated segments in alpha-expansin or a fungal endoglucanase (Cel12A). Subsequently, the innermost layer of the cell wall was imaged, with neither extraction nor homogenization, by field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). AFM images revealed that sample preparation for FESEM did not appreciably alter cell wall ultrastructure. In both FESEM and AFM, images from extended and non-extended samples appeared indistinguishable. To quantify orientational order, we used a novel algorithm to characterize the fast Fourier transform of the image as a function of spatial frequency. For both FESEM and AFM images, the transforms of non-extended samples were indistinguishable from those of samples extended by alpha-expansin or Cel12A, as were AFM images of samples extended by acidic buffer. We conclude that cell walls in vitro can extend slowly by a creep mechanism without passive reorientation of innermost microfibrils, implying that wall loosening agents act selectively on the cross-linking polymers between parallel microfibrils, rather than more generally on the wall matrix.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".