MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High content of cytosolic glutamine synthetase does not accompany a high activity of the enzyme in rice (<i>Oryza sativa</i>) leaves of indica cultivars

2000· article· en· W1975765661 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mitsuhiro Obara, Tadashi Sato, Tomoyuki Yamaya

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiologia Plantarum · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsJaponicaOryza sativaCultivarBiologyBotanyHorticultureBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reproductive stages of 5 japonica, 9 indica, and 2 javanica cultivars of rice ( Oryza sativa L.) were provided to compare the contents of protein for cytosolic glutamine synthetase (GS1; EC 6.3.1.2) in the lowest position of the attached leaf blade (position 6 from the primary leaf) and those for NADH‐glutamate synthase (NADH‐GOGAT; EC 1.4.1.14) in non‐green portion of the expanding 10th leaf blade. Some of the indica cultivars, including Kasalath, contained GS1 protein twice as high as other japonica and javanica cultivars based on total leaf nitrogen. Most of the indica cultivars, on the other hand, contained less NADH‐GOGAT protein than japonica and javanica cultivars. Immunostaining proved that GS1 protein was located in vascular tissues of the leaf blades of Kasalath, which was identical to our previous results with a japonica cultivar [Sakurai et al. (1996) Planta 200: 306–311]. Although relative contents of GS1 protein in the leaf blade of Kasalath increased as a function of leaf age, GS1 activity remained relatively constant. In addition, Kasalath showed lower activity than other japonica and javanica cultivars, especially during leaf expansion. GS1 activity, based on GS1 protein amount, changed during the life span of the leaf blade and we thus assume that GS1 activity was modulated post‐translationally in rice leaves.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiologia PlantarumSame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207