EPIDERMAL PATTERNING FACTOR LIKE5 Peptide Represses Stomatal Development by Inhibiting Meristemoid Maintenance in<i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stomatal development in Arabidopsis epidermis is both positively and negatively regulated by a family of Cys-rich peptides, EPIDERMAL PATTERNING FACTOR LIKEs (EPFLs). We synthesized biologically active synthetic EPFL5 (sEPFL5) peptide, which reduced the number of stoma in leaves and cotyledons. The sEPFL5 possesses three disulfide bonds at positions identical to those of a positive development factor, stomagen. Application of sEPFL5 had little inhibitory effect on protodermal cells entering the stomatal lineage, but did inhibit the maintenance of meristemoid activity, resulting in the differentiation of arrested meristemoids into pavement cells. This phenotype was enhanced in the too many mouths (tmm) mutant background. RNA analysis revealed that sEPFL5 application halved SPEECHLESS expression and abolished MUTE expression in tmm mutants, explaining the phenotype observed. The action of sEPFL5 was mediated by ERECTA family receptors. We propose that EPFL5 functions to establish the differentiation of stomatal lineage cells to pavement cells.
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) | 0.001 | 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".