Membranes and seed dormancy: beyond the anaesthetic hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The breaking of dormancy in seeds can be elicited by many factors, including temperature and short exposure to low molecular weight amphipathic molecules such as primary alcohols, monocarboxylic acids and anaesthetics. Their action has been suggested to be mediated through effecting changes to membranes. Paradoxically, though, these molecules can inhibit the germination of some non-dormant seeds. Here, we review the structure–activity relationships between amphipathic molecules and dormancy breaking and, based on the known responses of membranes to them and to temperature changes, offer an alternative interpretation of the data and a new hypothesis to explain their action. We suggest that amphipathic molecules break dormancy by partitioning into the membrane, thereby increasing and optimizing phospholipid headgroup spacing. This, in turn, facilitates the binding and activation of a peripheral membrane protein component of a signal transduction pathway that is essential for the completion of germination. In cases where amphipathic molecules inhibit germination, it is predicted that they cause the optimal headgroup spacing to be exceeded, thus preventing subsequent association of the membrane with the peripheral protein component. The hypothesis is extended to explain membrane changes that can lead to dormancy breaking during dry after-ripening.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".