MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Involvement of gibberellins in the stem elongation of sun and shade ecotypes of <i>Stellaria longipes</i> that is induced by low light irradiance

2006· article· en· W2022397367 on OpenAlexaff
Leonid V. Kurepin, Richard P. Pharis, David M. Reid, C. C. Chinnappa

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Cell & Environment · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcotypeGibberellinBotanyIrradianceBiologyElongationHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plants from two ecotypes of Stellaria longipes, alpine (an open, sunny habitat) and prairie (where adjacent plants provide a shaded habitat), were grown under normal and reduced levels of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). Growth under low PAR is significantly promoted in both ecotypes. When quantified by the stable isotope dilution method, endogenous gibberellins (GAs) (GA1, GA8, GA20, GA19) were significantly elevated under low PAR in both 'sun' and 'shade' ecotypes, as was GA53 in the shade ecotype. Changes in endogenous GA1 levels were significantly correlated with stem growth during a 28 d growth cycle and with relative growth rate (RGR) for height under low PAR for both ecotypes. Interestingly, under low irradiance PAR, changes (both increases and decreases) in GA8, the 2beta-hydroxylated 'inactive' catabolite of GA1, closely parallel bidaily stem growth changes for both ecotypes. Because the significantly greater stem elongation of both ecotypes in response to low irradiance PAR is associated with significant increases in the endogenous levels of five GAs (GA53, GA19, GA1, GA8) in the early 13-hydroxylation GA biosynthesis pathway (measured at days 7,14 and 21), we conclude that the low irradiance PAR has very likely induced an overall increase in GA biosynthesis.

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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.157
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Citations47
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Cell & EnvironmentSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207