Tracking Monolignols during Wood Development in Lodgepole Pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secondary xylem (wood) formation in gymnosperms requires that the tracheid protoplasts first build an elaborate secondary cell wall from an array of polysaccharides and then reinforce it with lignin, an amorphous, three-dimensional product of the random radical coupling of monolignols. The objective of this study was to track the spatial distribution of monolignols during development as they move from symplasm to apoplasm. This was done by feeding [(3)H]phenylalanine ([(3)H]Phe) to dissected cambium/developing wood from lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var latifolia) seedlings, allowing uptake and metabolism, then rapidly freezing the cells and performing autoradiography to detect the locations of the monolignols responsible for lignification. Parallel experiments showed that radioactivity was incorporated into polymeric lignin and a methanol-soluble pool that was characterized by high-performance liquid chromatography. [(3)H]Phe was incorporated into expected lignin precursors, such as coniferyl alcohol and p-coumaryl alcohol, as well as pinoresinol. Coniferin, the glucoside of coniferyl alcohol, was detected by high-performance liquid chromatography but was not radioactively labeled. With light microscopy, radiolabeled phenylpropanoids were detected in the rays as well as the tracheids, with the two cell types showing differential sensitivity to inhibitors of protein translation and phenylpropanoid metabolism. Secondary cell walls of developing tracheids were heavily labeled when incubated with [(3)H]Phe. Inside the cell, cytoplasm was most strongly labeled followed by Golgi and low-vacuole label. Inhibitor studies suggest that the Golgi signal could be attributed to protein, rather than phenylpropanoid, origins. These data, produced with the best microscopy tools that are available today, support a model in which unknown membrane transporters, rather than Golgi vesicles, export monolignols.
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) | 0.000 | 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".