MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of cytokinin on ethylene production and nodulation in pea (<i>Pisum</i><i>sativum</i>) cv. Sparkle

2001· article· en· W2054716887 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Agathe Lorteau, Brett J. Ferguson, Frédérique C. Guinel

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiologia Plantarum · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWilfrid Laurier University
KeywordsPisumSativumCytokininEthyleneBiologyMutantSymbiosisBotanyHorticultureAuxinBiochemistryBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we were interested in learning if cytokinins play a role in the developmental process that leads to nodulation in the pea cv. Sparkle. We demonstrate that the application of the synthetic cytokinin BAP (6-benzyl-amino-purine) results in a number of nodulation-related changes. BAP stimulates the production of ethylene, a known inhibitor of nodulation. At low levels (up to 1 &mgr;M), BAP also stimulates nodulation but as its concentration is increased (up to 25 &mgr;M), nodule number decreases. In BAP-treated roots, the infection threads are abnormal; they are twisted, very knotty, and generally grow in a direction parallel to the root surface. In addition, the centers of cell division in the inner cortex are very few. Thus, BAP-treated Sparkle appears to phenocopy the low-nodulating pea mutant R50 [Guinel FC, Sloetjes LL (2000) Ethylene is involved in the nodulation phenotype of Pisum sativum R50 (sym 16), a pleiotropic mutant that nodulates poorly and has pale green leaves. J Exp Bot 51: 885-894]. However, it appears doubtful that there is a direct correlation between the actions of cytokinin and ethylene in causing a reduction in nodule organogenesis because nodulation is not restored by treating BAP-treated Sparkle with ethylene inhibitors.

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 score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations85
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiologia PlantarumSame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207