MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004440670 · doi:10.1111/nph.13014

Irrepressible <i><scp>MONOPTEROS</scp>/<scp>ARF</scp>5</i> promotes <i>de novo</i> shoot formation

2014· article· en· W2004440670 on OpenAlexafffund
Wenzislava Ckurshumova, Т. А. Смирнова, Danielle Marcos, Yara Zayed, Thomas Berleth

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDivision of ChemistryNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCytokininShootAuxinBiologyArabidopsisCell biologyRegeneration (biology)Signal transductionPlant hormoneCallusBotanyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro regeneration of complete organisms from diverse cell types is a spectacular property of plant cells. Despite the great importance of plant regeneration for plant breeding and biotechnology, its molecular basis is still largely unclear and many important crop plants have remained recalcitrant to regeneration. Hormone-exposure protocols to trigger the de novo formation of either roots or shoots from callus tissue demonstrate the importance of auxin and cytokinin signaling pathways, and genetic differences in these pathways may contribute to the highly divergent responsiveness of plant species to regeneration protocols. In this study, we show that signaling through MONOPTEROS (MP)/AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR 5 is necessary for the formation of shoots from Arabidopsis calli. Most strikingly, an irrepressible variant of MP, MPΔ, is sufficient for promoting de novo shoot formation through pathways involving the genetically downstream functions of SHOOT MERISTEMLESS (STM) and CYTOKININ RESPONSE FACTOR2 (CRF2). We conclude that the MPΔ genotype can promote de novo shoot formation and can be used to probe corresponding signaling pathways.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations97
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207