MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003836425 · doi:10.4161/viru.36329

Proteomics of effector-triggered immunity (ETI) in plants

2014· review· en· W2003836425 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVirulence · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEffectorProteomicsBiologyComputational biologyPlant ImmunityGeneGeneticsCell biologyArabidopsis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effector-triggered immunity (ETI) was originally termed gene-for-gene resistance and dates back to fundamental observations of flax resistance to rust fungi by Harold Henry Flor in the 1940s. Since then, genetic and biochemical approaches have defined our current understanding of how plant "resistance" proteins recognize microbial effectors. More recently, proteomic approaches have expanded our view of the protein landscape during ETI and contributed significant advances to our mechanistic understanding of ETI signaling. Here we provide an overview of proteomic techniques that have been used to study plant ETI including both global and targeted approaches. We discuss the challenges associated with ETI proteomics and highlight specific examples from the literature, which demonstrate how proteomics is advancing the ETI research field.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.244 · 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