MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stimulatory and Inhibitory Conditioning Factors that Regulate Cell Proliferation and Morphogenesis in Plant Cell Cultures.

2001· article· en· W2016279136 on OpenAlexaff
Toshihiro Kobayashi, Katsumi Higashi, Hiroshi Kamada

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Biotechnology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsPlant Biotechnology Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySomatic cellCell biologyMorphogenesisCell growthCell divisionSomatic embryogenesisInhibitory postsynaptic potentialEmbryoCellPlant cellEmbryogenesisGeneticsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proliferation and morphogenesis in plant cell cultures are influenced by the conditioning factors that are produced by the cultured cells themselves. Phytosulfokines(PSKs), sulfated peptide growth factors, have been identified as conditioning factors that promote cell proliferation in plant cell cultures. Our research has shown that the formation of carrot somatic embryos is regulated by both stimulatory and inhibitory conditioning factors. The stimulatory factor was found to be PSK, which markedly increased the frequency of somatic embryo formation. In contrast, the inhibitory factor was identified as 4-hydroxybenzyl alcohol(4HBA). 4HBA strongly inhibited somatic embryo formation by specifically suppressing the rapid cell division that is characteristic of the early globular stage. These findings suggest that dose-balancing of various plant growth regulators, including PSK and inhibitory factors, like 4HBA, might contribute to cell proliferation and morphogenesis in plant cell cultures.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BiotechnologySame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207