Differential Implication of Glutathione, Glutathione‐Metabolizing Enzymes and Ascorbate in Tomato Resistance to<i>Pseudomonas syringae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We studied the response of glutathione‐ and ascorbate‐related antioxidant systems of the two tomato cultivars toPseudomonas syringaepv.tomatoinfection. In the inoculated susceptible A 100 cultivar a substantial decrease in reduced glutathione (GSH) content, oxidised glutathione accumulation and GSH redox ratio decline as well as glutathione peroxidase activity increase were found. The enhanced glutathione reductase activity was insufficient to keep the glutathione pool reduced. A transiently increased dehydroascorbic acid (DHA) content and ascorbic acid (AA) redox ratio decrease together with ascorbate peroxidase activity suppression were observed. Adversely to the progressive reduction in GSH pool size, AA content tended to increase but the changes were more modest than those of GSH. By contrast, in interaction with the resistant Ontario cultivar the glutathione pool homeostasis was maintained throughoutP. syringaeattack and no significant effect on the ascorbate pool was observed. Moreover, in the resistant interaction there was a significantly higher constitutive and pathogen‐induced glutathione‐S‐transferase (GST) activity. The relationship between GST activity and DHA content found in this study indicates that this enzyme could also act as dehydroascorbate reductase. These results reflect the differential involvement of GSH and AA in tomato‐P. syringaeinteraction and, in favour of the former, they clearly indicate the role of GSH and GSH‐utilizing enzymes in resistance toP. syringae. The maintenance of glutathione pool homeostasis and GST induction appear to contribute to tissue inaccessibility to bacterial attack.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".