MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966290182 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2014.00181

A conserved role for the ARC1 E3 ligase in Brassicaceae self-incompatibility

2014· review· en· W1966290182 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily Indriolo, Daphne R. Goring

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBrassicaceaeUbiquitin ligasePollenArabidopsisBrassicaF-box proteinBiologyBrassica oleraceaUbiquitinCell biologyGeneticsBotanyChemistryGeneMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ubiquitination plays essential roles in the regulation of many processes in plants including pollen rejection in self-incompatible species. In the Brassicaceae (mustard family), self-incompatibility drives the rejection of self-pollen by preventing pollen hydration following pollen contact with the stigmatic surface. Self-pollen is recognized by a ligand-receptor pair: the pollen S-locus cysteine rich/S-locus protein 11 (SCR/SP11) ligand and the pistil S receptor kinase (SRK). Following self-pollen contact, the SCR/SP11 ligand on the pollen surface binds to SRK on the pistil surface, and the SRK-activated signaling pathway is initiated. This pathway includes the armadillo repeat containing 1 (ARC1) protein, a member of the plant U-box (PUB) family of E3 ubiquitin ligases. ARC1 is a functional E3 ligase and is required downstream of SRK for the self-incompatibility response. This mini review highlights our recent progress in establishing ARC1's conserved role in self-pollen rejection in Brassica and Arabidopsis species and discusses future research directions in this field.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.292
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207