MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027693646 · doi:10.1139/b03-145

Visual characterization of the extracellular matrix of <i>Cochliobolus heterostrophus</i> and a mutant strain with a modified matrix

2004· article· en· W2027693646 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rosaria A. Healy, Harry T. Horner, C. R. Bronson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuthenium redMutantExtracellular matrixBiologyExtracellularCell biologyVirulenceBiophysicsChemistryBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two layers of extracellular matrix (ECM) and a film secreted outside the layers were visualized on germlings of Cochliobolus heterostrophus Drechsler grown on glass slides, cellophane membranes, and the surface of maize leaves. A mutant of C. heterostrophus, less virulent than the wild type, possessed the inner layer of ECM and the film, but not the outer layer. Using cytochemical and morphological methods, we explored the hypothesis that the reduced virulence of the mutant in leaves was due to the absence of the outer layer of the ECM. All ECMs were characterized using ruthenium red fixation, cryopreservation, immunocytochemistry, and colloidal gold labeling, before being examined with light and electron microscopy. With immunocytochemistry, antigens were localized in islands stained with ruthenium red within the scaffolding of the outer layer of the wild-type ECM on leaf surfaces and within the leaf. In the mutant, antigens were localized in the film on leaf surfaces. Comparisons between leaves infected by the two strains showed hyphae to be enclosed within material interpreted to be host response within intercellular spaces of leaves infected by the mutant, but not the wild type.Key words: Cochliobolus, cytochemistry, extracellular matrix, microscopy, mutant, virulence.

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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207