Effect of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus <i>Glomus intraradices</i> on expression of cytoskeletal proteins in tomato roots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The expression patterns of the cytoskeletal proteins α-, β-, and γ-tubulin, actin, and myosin were investigated in young tomato roots and older roots at different intensities of mycorrhizal colonization. The relative level of cytoskeletal proteins was estimated by protein blotting and immunostaining. The contribution of plant α-, β-, and γ-tubulin to the total protein pool was higher in uncolonized 2-week-old roots than in 10-week-old roots, whereas the contribution of actin remained constant. The level of plant tubulin expression was clearly higher in mycorrhizal root systems than in uncolonized older root systems. These results indicate that tubulins are more involved in plant cell differentiation than actin. Myosin of approximately 230 kDa was expressed in the roots of 10-week-old wild-type tomato but not in young or mycorrhizal tomatoes. In contrast, a smaller ca. 170 kDa myosin was consistently present in all root samples. Indirect immunofluorescence microscopy showed that plant myosin was located particularly along the periarbuscular membranes surrounding the arbuscule branches. In uncolonized roots, myosin was associated mainly with membranes adjacent to plant cell walls. These data provide novel evidence that myosin expression and localization in root cells responds to mycorrhizal colonization.Key words: actin, myosin, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, protein expression, tubulin.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".