An evaluation of the evidence for, and implications of, cytoplasmic nitrate homeostasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A review of literature, reporting values of cytoplasmic/cytosolic [NO3–] in plant cells, identified two major areas of disagreement: (1) disparity in the absolute values within the same system, and (2) constancy versus variability in cytoplasmic/cytosolic [NO3–] with varying [NO3–]o.These differences are related to the techniques used by the different authors. Estimates of cytoplasmic [NO3–] by compartmental analysis and by cell fractionation were consistently higher than the estimates by NO3–selective microelectrodes and by techniques based uponin vivoandin vitronitrate reductase activity (NRA). A model recognizing more than one cytoplasmic ionic pool would satisfactorily reconcile the differences in both aspects, i.e. absolute values and constancy. Compartmental analysis and cell fractionation techniques may measure the amount of NO3–in the cytoplasm as a whole (including organelles); by contrast, NO3–selective microelectrodes and NRA estimate only the cytosolic NO3–and, hence, may result in lower estimates. Thus, variable organellar pool(s) may maintain a constant cytosolic pool as estimated by microelectrodes. However, certain observations remain at odds with the notion of a constant cytosolic [NO3–].
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".