Bibliographic record
Abstract
Living organisms have the clearly defined strategies of stress response. These strategies are predefined by a genetic make-up of the organism and depend on a complex regulatory network of molecular interactions. Although in most cases, the plant response to stress based on the mechanisms of tolerance, resistance, and avoidance has clearly defined metabolic pathways, the ability to acclimate/adapt after a single generation exposure previously observed in several studies (Boyko A et al. [2007]: Nucleic Acids Res 35:1714-1725; Boyko and Kovalchuk, unpublished data), represents an interesting phenomenon that cannot be explained by Mendelian genetics. The latest findings in the field of epigenetics and the process of a reversible control over gene expression and inheritance lead to believe that organisms, especially plants, may have a flexible short-term strategy of the response to stress. Indeed, the organisms that can modify gene expression reversibly have an advantage in evolutionary terms, since they can avoid unnecessary excessive rearrangements and population diversification. This review covers various epigenetic processes involved in plant stress response. We focus on the mechanisms of DNA methylation and histone modifications responsible for the protection of somatic cells and inheritance of stress memories.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".