MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024784465 · doi:10.1139/b09-072

Too much of a good thing? Hybrid necrosis as a by-product of plant immune system diversification

2009· article· en· W2024784465 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kirsten Bomblies

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyImmune systemDiversification (marketing strategy)NecrosisEvolutionary biologyEpistasisGeneGeneticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plants defend themselves against their enemies with an impressive arsenal of physical barriers, surveillance and defense proteins, enzymes, and toxic chemicals. Many different molecules are involved in the detection of invaders, suggesting that pathogen pressure selects for a broad array of defense strategies and a high diversity of recognition specificities in host species. Recent results in plants, however, show that immune system diversification can also have negative consequences; epistatic interactions among divergent immune system components can cause hybrid necrosis, a form of genetic incompatibility. This type of hybrid failure is frequently lethal, and characterized by the widespread induction of programmed cell death leading to tissue necrosis. In characterized examples, this is caused by hyperactivation of defense responses. Both the prevalence of hybrid necrosis in diverse plant taxa, and the growing indication that it may arise as a by-product of adaptation to the biotic environment, emphasize that it is likely a general factor in plant evolution. Since hybrid necrosis negatively impacts the progeny of certain crosses, divergence of the plant immune system may indirectly affect gene flow among populations, and perhaps contribute to the establishment or maintenance of species barriers.

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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207