MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036231164 · doi:10.1139/b10-075

The effects of fluctuations in the nutrient supply on the expression of <i>ANR1</i> and 11 other MADS box genes in shoots and roots of <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>

2010· article· en· W2036231164 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yinbo Gan, Zhongjing Zhou, Lijun An, Shengjie Bao, Qing Liu, Murali Srinivasan, Peter Goddard

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesYara InternationalCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsMADS-boxBiologyShootArabidopsis thalianaGeneNutrientBotanyArabidopsisGeneticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We previously reported that the response of ANR1 expression in shoots to nitrogen (N) starvation and resupply was different from its response in roots. However, how the other root-expressed MADS box genes respond to different N fluctuations in the shoot, and how these MADS box genes respond to complete nutrient fluctuations in the root, were unknown. Results from this study have shown that some members of these root-expressed MADS box genes have different responses in the shoot and root to N treatments, whereas others have similar responses or no responses to the N treatments. Among these 12 root-expressed MADS box genes, AGL16 was the only gene to show a similar response to N fluctuation in both shoots and roots in the same way as ANR1. Results from this study have also shown that ANR1, AGL12, AGL16, AGL19, and SOC1 responded to changes of the complete nutrient condition, which might indicate that they could play key roles in general nutrient stress. These novel findings will help us to further characterize these 12 MADS box genes to uncover the complex regulatory networks that integrate plant responses to changes in nutrient availability.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207