MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072243290 · doi:10.1042/bst0280651

Expression of the wax-specific condensing enzyme CUTI in <i>Arabidopsis</i>

2000· article· en· W2072243290 on OpenAlexaff
Ljerka Kunst, Sabine Clemens, Tanya S. Hooker

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemical Society Transactions · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Surface Properties and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArabidopsisArabidopsis thalianaTransgeneBiologyGeneGene expressionGenetically modified cropsBoltingMolecular biologyPromoterEpicuticular waxWaxBiochemistryBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arabidopsis thaliana gene CUT1 encodes a very-long-chain fatty acid-condensing enzyme required for the production of epicuticular wax in bolting stems. We have examined the expression pattern of CUT1 in Arabidopsis at different developmental stages and under different environmental conditions. RNA blot analysis showed that CUT1 was highly expressed in shoots, but not in roots. CUT1 expression was detectable throughout development. Light was required for CUT1 expression, and expression was increased by salt and drought treatments. The promoter region of the CUT1 gene was cloned, and 1.2 kb of the sequence 5' to the translation start codon was used to direct beta-glucuronidase (GUS) expression in transgenic plants. Histochemical and fluorometric (quantitative) GUS assays confirmed that the CUT1 promoter directed epidermal-specific expression and was highly active in Arabidopsis and in tobacco. A construct using the CUT1 promoter to drive CUT1 expression (CUT1p-CUT1) was used to transform Arabidopsis. Transgenic plants which had somewhat increased (overexpression) or greatly reduced (co-suppression) wax loads were recovered. Thus, the CUT1 promoter should be useful for genetic engineering applications that require epidermis-specific expression of genes.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemical Society TransactionsSame topicPlant Surface Properties and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207