Deposition patterns of cellulose microfibrils in flange wall ingrowths of transfer cells indicate clear parallels with those of secondary wall thickenings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The arrangement of cellulose microfibrils and cortical microtubules in transfer cells depositing flange wall ingrowths have been determined with field emission scanning electron microscopy and immunofluorescence confocal microscopy. In xylem transfer cells of wheat (Triticum aestivum) stem nodes and transfer cells of corn (Zea mays) endosperm tissue, cellulose microfibrils were aligned in parallel bundles to form the linear wall ingrowths characteristic of flange ingrowth morphology. In both cell types, linear bundles of cellulose microfibrils were deposited over an underlying wall composed of randomly arranged microfibrils. Acid extraction of wheat xylem transfer cells established that flange ingrowths were composed of crystalline cellulose. Immunofluorescence labelling of microtubules in wheat xylem transfer cells showed that bundles of microtubules were positioned directly below and parallel with developing flange ingrowths, whereas more mature ingrowths were flanked by bundles of microtubules. These results show that the parallel organisation of cellulose microfibrils in flange wall ingrowths is similar to those in secondary wall thickenings in xylem elements, and that deposition of these structures in transfer cells is also likely to involve bundling of parallel arrays of microtubules. Our observations are discussed in terms of the possible role of microtubules in building flange-type wall ingrowths and the consequences in terms of predicted mechanisms required to build the fundamentally different reticulate-type wall ingrowths.
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".