MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966277092 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018549

Regulator or Driving Force? The Role of Turgor Pressure in Oscillatory Plant Cell Growth

2011· article· en· W1966277092 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTurgor pressureGrowth rateViscoelasticityPlant growthMechanicsAmplitudeBiophysicsRegulatorChemistryThermodynamicsPhysicsMathematicsBiologyBotanyGeometryBiochemistryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Turgor generates the stress that leads to the expansion of plant cell walls during cellular growth. This has been formalized by the Lockhart equation, which can be derived from the physical laws of the deformation of viscoelastic materials. However, the experimental evidence for such a direct correlation between growth rate and turgor is inconclusive. This has led to challenges of the Lockhart model. We model the oscillatory growth of pollen tubes to investigate this relationship. We couple the Lockhart equation to the dynamical equations for the change in material properties. We find that the correct implementation of the Lockhart equation within a feedback loop leading to low amplitude oscillatory growth predicts that in this system changes in the global turgor do not influence the average growth rate in a linear manner, consistent with experimental observations. An analytic analysis of our model demonstrates in which regime the average growth rate becomes uncorrelated from the turgor pressure.

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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

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 head0.180
Teacher spread0.161 · 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