Picloram Resistance in Transgenic Tobacco Expressing an Anti-Picloram scFv Antibody Is Due to Reduced Translocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Picloram resistance exhibited by transgenic tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) plants expressing an anti-picloram single-chain variable fragment (scFv) antibody was investigated through the study of homozygous lines expressing the antibody. Dose-response bioassays, using foliar application of picloram, showed that these homozygous transgenic plants were resistant to at least 5 g of ai ha-1 picloram and grew normally to produce seed, whereas wild-type plants did not survive. Although these lines had improved resistance compared with those previously reported, significant improvements are still required to achieve field-level resistance. Uptake and translocation studies demonstrated that [14C]picloram translocation from treated leaves to the apical meristem was reduced in transgenic versus wild-type plants. The presence of [14C]picloram visualized by autoradiography and quantified by liquid scintillation spectrometry, demonstrated the distribution of more picloram in the treated leaf and less in the apical meristem of transgenic plants when compared to wild-type plants. No differences between transgenic and wild-type plants were found in the distribution of [14C]clopyralid, a herbicide with structural similarity to picloram as well as the same mechanism of action. No differences were found in the metabolism of [14C]picloram. Taken together, these results suggest that reduced translocation to the site of action is a major mechanism responsible for picloram resistance in tobacco plants expressing this anti-picloram antibody.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".