MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979931390 · doi:10.4161/psb.3.7.5556

Arabidopsis

2008· article· en· W1979931390 on OpenAlexaff
Hiroshi Abe, Jun Ohnishi, Mari Narusaka, Shigemi Seo, Yoshihiro Narusaka, Shinya Tsuda, Masatomo Kobayashi

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Signaling & Behavior · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyArabidopsisComputational biologyBotanyGeneticsGeneMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insect feeding retards plant growth and decreases crop productivity. Plants respond to insect feeding at the molecular, cellular and physiological levels. The roles of the plant hormones jasmonic acid (JA), ethylene (ET) and salicylic acid (SA) in plant responses to insect feeding have been studied. However, these studies are focused on the plant responses to feeding by well-studied caterpillar type insects or aphid pests. In contrast, we have focused on a minute insect pest, the western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis). Analyses of the responses of hormone-related mutants of Arabidopsis (i.e., JA-insensitive mutant coi1-1, ET-insensitive mutants ein2-1 and ein3-1, and SA-deficient mutant eds16-1) and transcriptome-based comparative analyses indicate the central role of JA in plant responses to thrips feeding. Our work clearly shows that JA signaling, but not JA/ET signaling, is involved in plant tolerance to thrips feeding. We intend to examine the utility and suitability of the Arabidopsis-thrips system in studies of plant responses to insect feeding.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1280.122

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Signaling & BehaviorSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207