MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998647109 · doi:10.1111/tpj.12136

<scp>ABA</scp> inhibits entry into stomatal‐lineage development in <scp>A</scp>rabidopsis leaves

2013· article· en· W1998647109 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yôko Tanaka, Tomoe Nose, Yusuke Jikumaru, Yuji Kamiya

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArizona Biomedical Research CommissionUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Washington
KeywordsAbscisic acidGuard cellMutantCell biologyArabidopsisBiologyBotanyGeneChemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number and density of stomata are controlled by endogenous and environmental factors. Despite recent advances in our understanding of stomatal development, mechanisms which prevent stomatal-lineage entry remain unclear. Here, we propose that abscisic acid (ABA), a phytohormone known to induce stomatal closure, limits initiation of stomatal development and induces enlargement of pavement cells in Arabidopsis cotyledons. An ABA-deficient aba2-2 mutant had an increased number/proportion of stomata within a smaller cotyledon, as well as reduced expansion of pavement cells. This tendency was reversed after ABA application or in an ABA over-accumulating cyp707a1cyp707a3 doublemutant. Our time course analysis revealed that aba2-2 shows prolonged formation of meristemoids and guard mother cells, both precursors of stoma. This finding is in accordance with prolonged gene expression of SPCH and MUTE, master regulators for stomatal formation, indicating that ABA acts upstream of these genes. Only aba2-2 mute, but not aba2-2 spch double mutant showed additive phenotypes and displayed inhibition of pavement cell enlargement with increased meristemoid number, indicating that ABA action on pavement cell expansion requires the presence of stomatal-lineage cells.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations161
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207