MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distinct relationships between GLABRA2 and single‐repeat R3 MYB transcription factors in the regulation of trichome and root hair patterning in Arabidopsis

2009· article· en· W2013658140 on OpenAlexaff
Shucai Wang, Christa Barron, John Schiefelbein, Jin‐Gui Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMYBBiologyTrichomeTranscription factorRoot hairArabidopsisMutantPhenotypeGeneticsHomeoboxCell biologyGeneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

*The patterning of epidermal cell types in Arabidopsis is an excellent model for studying the molecular basis of cell specification. Trichome and root hair formation is controlled by a transcriptional activator complex that induces the homeobox gene GLABRA2 (GL2) and some single-repeat R3 MYB genes (single MYB). However, it remains unclear how the actions of GL2 and single MYBs are coordinated to regulate epidermal patterning. *GL2 is thought to act downstream of single MYBs to regulate trichome and root hair development. In order to test this hypothesis genetically, double and higher order mutants between gl2 and single myb were generated. *In these mutants, the glabrous phenotypes observed in the gl2 single mutants were partially recovered, suggesting that single MYBs may not act solely through GL2 to regulate trichome development. On the other hand, double and higher order mutants between gl2 and single myb phenocopied the root hair phenotype of gl2 single mutants, suggesting that GL2 and single MYBs act in a common pathway to regulate root hair patterning. *These findings reveal distinct relationships between GL2 and single MYBs in the regulation of trichome vs root hair development, and provide new insights into the molecular mechanism of epidermal patterning.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations82
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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