MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989020046 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2015-0002

Magnesium inhibits cadmium translocation from roots to shoots, rather than the uptake from roots, in barley

2015· article· en· W1989020046 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hiroaki Kudo, Kazuaki Kudo, Matsuo Uemura, Shigenao Kawai

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Science Society
KeywordsShootChromosomal translocationCadmiumHordeum vulgareBiologyMagnesiumBotanyPhytotoxicityHorticulturePoaceaeChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the effect of magnesium (Mg) on cadmium (Cd) toxicity symptoms, uptake, and sorption to the plasma membrane in barley (Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Minorimugi’). Plants were grown in a constant concentration of Cd with variable Mg concentrations. Plants supplied with Cd only had necrotic first leaves, undeveloped emerging leaves, and outgrown lateral buds. The latter may account for greater dry mass accumulation in plants treated with Cd only than plants supplied with Mg. The symptoms of Cd stress were at least partly alleviated by the addition of Mg to the medium. Mg reduced accumulation of Cd in both shoots and roots, although there was a clear dose response in shoots only. We conclude that Mg inhibited Cd accumulation either by competing with Cd for uptake by the root or by inhibiting Cd translocation to the shoot. Cd sorption to plasma membrane vesicles from roots was unaffected by a concentration of Mg similar to that of Cd, but was reduced by high concentrations of Mg. This evidence of only weak competition between the two minerals suggests that the primary effect of Mg on reducing Cd accumulation is not through competition at the root surface but that Mg inhibits Cd translocation to shoots.

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 score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207