MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The <i>Arabidopsis COW1</i> gene encodes a phosphatidylinositol transfer protein essential for root hair tip growth

2004· article· en· W1933860487 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Karen Böhme, Yong Li, Florence Charlot, Claire Grierson, Katia Marrocco, Michel Laloue, Fabien Nogué

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueEuropean Commission
KeywordsRoot hairArabidopsis thalianaArabidopsisBiologyMutantGenePositional cloningYeastCell biologyCloning (programming)Protein domainGeneticsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Root hairs are a major site for the uptake of water and nutrients into plants, and they form an increasingly important model system for the study of development in higher plants. We now report on the molecular genetic analysis of the srh1 mutant in Arabidopsis thaliana impaired in root hair tip growth. We show that srh1 is a new allele of cow1 (can of worms1) and we identified the COW1 gene using a positional cloning strategy. The N-terminus of the COW1 protein is 32% identical to an essential phosphatidylinositol transfer protein (PITP), the yeast Sec14 protein (sec14p) while the C-terminus is 34.5% identical to a late nodulin of Lotus japonicus, Nlj16. We show that expression of the COW1 lipid-binding domain complements the growth defect associated with Sec14p dysfunction in yeast. In addition, we show that GFP fused to the COW1 protein specifically accumulates at the site of root hair outgrowth. We conclude that the COW1 protein is a PITP, essential for proper root hair growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations100
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207