Physiological implications of arginine metabolism in plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nitrogen is a limiting resource for plant growth in most terrestrial habitats since large amounts of nitrogen are needed to synthesize nucleic acids and proteins. Among the 21 proteinogenic amino acids, arginine has the highest nitrogen to carbon ratio, which makes it especially suitable as a storage form of organic nitrogen. Synthesis in chloroplasts via ornithine is apparently the only operational pathway to provide arginine in plants, and the rate of arginine synthesis is tightly regulated by various feedback mechanisms in accordance with the overall nutritional status. While several steps of arginine biosynthesis still remain poorly characterized in plants, much wider attention has been paid to inter- and intracellular arginine transport as well as arginine-derived metabolites. A role of arginine as alternative source besides glutamate for proline biosynthesis is still discussed controversially and may be prevented by differential subcellular localization of enzymes. Apparently, arginine is a precursor for nitric oxide (NO), although the molecular mechanism of NO production from arginine remains unclear in higher plants. In contrast, conversion of arginine to polyamines is well documented, and in several plant species also ornithine can serve as a precursor for polyamines. Both NO and polyamines play crucial roles in regulating developmental processes as well as responses to biotic and abiotic stress. It is thus conceivable that arginine catabolism serves on the one hand to mobilize nitrogen storages, while on the other hand it may be used to fine-tune development and defense mechanisms against stress. This review summarizes the recent advances in our knowledge about arginine metabolism, with a special focus on the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, and pinpoints still unresolved critical questions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".