Differential synthesis of phosphate‐starvation inducible purple acid phosphatase isozymes in tomato (<i>Lycopersicon esculentum</i>) suspension cells and seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the influence of phosphate (Pi) deprivation on the coordinate synthesis of the principle Pi-starvation inducible (PSI) acid phosphatase (AP) isozymes in a suspension cell culture with the homologous in planta system. Tomato suspension cells express three PSI purple AP isozymes: a heterodimeric intracellular AP (IAP) composed of 63 and 57 kDa subunits, and two monomeric secreted APs (SAPs) (84 kDa SAP1 and 57 kDa SAP2) localized in the culture media. Immunoblots probed with rabbit antibodies raised against purified SAP1 or IAP indicated the immunological distinctiveness of SAP1 relative to IAP and SAP2. Time-course studies of cells and seedlings undergoing a transition from Pi sufficiency to Pi deficiency revealed a close relationship between total IAP or SAP activity and relative amounts of antigenic IAP or SAP polypeptides. Upregulation of the pre-existing IAP in 6-day-old Pi-deficient (-Pi) suspension cells coincided with a 20-fold reduction in intracellular free Pi levels, which occurred 2 d prior to initial accumulation of SAP1 and SAP2 in the culture media. Similarly, root-specific SAP synthesis in -Pi seedlings occurred at least 7 d following IAP induction in roots or shoots. Preferential sequestration of limiting Pi to the leaves of the -Pi seedlings was suggested by the delayed induction of leaf versus root IAP. Our results confirm recent transcript profiling studies suggesting that PSI proteins are subject to both temporal and tissue-specific syntheses in- Pi plants.
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".