A model for the 26S proteasome and ribosome actions in leaf polarity formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leaf morphogenesis requires the establishment of adaxial-abaxial polarity in emerging leaf primordia, and a number of genes participating in this process have been identified in recent years. We previously reported that the 26S proteasome is important in specifying the leaf adaxial fate. More recently, two papers from separate researches showed that several genes encoding ribosomal large subunit proteins also play an important role in leaf adaxial-abaxial patterning. Here we show that plants with a single mutation in the genes encoding either 26S proteasome subunits or ribosomal proteins shared similar abnormalities in some leaves, with an outgrowth formed on the distal part of the leaf abaxial side. Plants harboring these 26S proteasome or ribosome mutations in combination with an additional mutation asymmetric leaves1 or 2 (as1 or as2) demonstrated severely defective leaves, and the phenotypes of these double mutants were very similar. Because activities of the 26S proteasome and ribosome both affect the level of functional proteins, the recent findings suggest that a previously unrecognized regulation, the protein level regulation, is critical in normal leaf patterning. A regulatory model for the 26S proteasome and ribosome actions in leaf patterning is discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".