MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022379387 · doi:10.1104/pp.106.077552

Adenylate-Coupled Ion Movement. A Mechanism for the Control of Nodule Permeability to O2 Diffusion

2006· article· en· W2022379387 on OpenAlexaff
Hui Wei, David B. Layzell

Bibliographic record

VenuePLANT PHYSIOLOGY · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiophysicsPermeability (electromagnetism)PhloemGirdlingOxygenChemistryBiologyBiochemistryBotanyMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to changes in phloem supply, adenylate demand, and oxygen status, legume nodules are known to exercise rapid (seconds to hours) physiological control over their permeability to oxygen diffusion. Diffusion models have attributed this permeability control to the reversible flow of water into or out of intercellular spaces. To test hypotheses on the mechanism of diffusion barrier control, nodulated soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) plants were exposed to a range of treatments known to alter nodule O2 permeability (i.e. 10% O2, 30% O2, Ar:O2 exposure, and stem girdling) before the nodules were rapidly frozen, freeze dried, and dissected into cortex and central zone (CZ) fractions that were assayed for K, Mg, and Ca ion concentrations. Treatments known to decrease nodule permeability (30% O2, Ar:O2 exposure, and stem girdling) were consistently associated with an increase in the ratio of [K+] in cortex to [K+] in the CZ tissue, whereas the 10% O2 treatment, known to increase nodule permeability, was associated with a decrease in the [K+]cortex:[K+](CZ). When these findings were considered in the light of previous results, a proposed mechanism was developed for the adenylate-coupled movement of ions and water into and out of infected cells as a possible mechanism for diffusion barrier control in legume nodules.

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 score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations40
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLANT PHYSIOLOGYSame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207