MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017766508 · doi:10.3103/s0095452707010021

The role of Cd-binding proteins and phytochelatins in the formation of resistance to cadmium in the cell lines of Nicotiana plumbaginifolia

2007· article· en· W2017766508 on OpenAlexaff
S. I. Fenik, Victor Solodushko, T. B. Kalinyak, Astrid Blume

Bibliographic record

VenueCytology and Genetics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadmiumPhytochelatinMolecular massCallusCell cultureBiochemistryBiologyMolecular biologyBinding proteinChemistryGeneticsGlutathioneEnzymeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The callus lines of Nicotiana plumbaginifolia with equal resistances to cadmium were obtained under different selective conditions, including without the inhibition of phytochelatin synthesis (the Cd-R line) and with the inhibition of a butionine sulfoximine (the Cd-Ri line). The level of phytochelatin synthesis in the Cd-R and Cd-Ri lines exceeded the control value by fivefold and twofold, respectively. Three cadmium-binding proteins with molecular masses of 41, 34, and 19 kDa were observed mainly in the control line. A common feature of both resistant lines was the expression of cadmium-binding proteins with molecular masses of 40, 34, and 19 kDa. The synthesis of relatively low-molecular cadmium-binding proteins was characteristic of the resistant lines as follows: the line Cd-R expressed the proteins with molecular masses of 12.5, 11.5, and 9 kDa, while the Cd-Ri line expressed those with molecular masses of 13 and 10 kDa. We supposed that both phytochelatins and Cd-binding proteins contribute to the resistance to cadmium in N. plumbaginifolia callus lines, and, additionally, that changes in the synthesis of low-molecular Cd-binding proteins can compensate for the lack of phytochelatins.

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)0.000
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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytology and GeneticsSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207