The shoot apical meristem: an historical perspectiveThis review is one of a selection of papers published on the Special Theme of Shoot Apical Meristems.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although much of the current investigation of shoot apical meristems is in the realm of molecular genetic analysis, it is important that previous structural and functional studies not be overlooked as essential background to these studies. Since Caspar Friedrich Wolff described the shoot apical meristem in 1759, many and varied interpretations have arisen. In the early 19th century, the apical cell was recognized in seedless vascular plants and this interpretation was extended to seed plants. However, by the 1860s, this view was replaced in seed plants by the histogen concept, which recognized meristem layers in the apical meristem giving rise to specific tissues. In 1924, the tunica–corpus interpretation of angiosperm shoot apices became widespread, the two regions being distinguished by different planes of cell division. In the 1950s, the “méristème d’attente” concept appeared in France, which argued that the central region of the apex remained essentially inactive until the onset of flowering. Meanwhile, the recognition of zonation patterns in angiosperm and gymnosperm shoot apices assumed growing functional importance. Clonal analysis based on chimeras in the meristem indicated the presence of initial cells but also their replacement. Surgical experimentation and culture of excised apices in vitro stressed the autonomy of the shoot apex and its role in shoot development. Present molecular genetic analysis may help to resolve some of the persistent questions concerning the organization and functioning of shoot apical meristems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".