MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The characterization of photoinhibition and recovery during cold acclimation in <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i> using chlorophyll fluorescence imaging

2003· article· en· W2084118734 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon R. Gray, Bradley J. Hope, Xiaoqiong Qin, B. G. Taylor, Carmen L. Whitehead

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiologia Plantarum · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersArmy Research Office
KeywordsPhotoinhibitionAcclimatizationChlorophyll fluorescencePhotosynthesisEcotypeBiologyBotanyArabidopsis thalianaChlorophyllPhotosystem IIQuenching (fluorescence)FluorescenceHorticultureBiophysicsBiochemistryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The responses to photoinhibition of photosynthesis at low temperature and subsequent recovery were examined in Arabidopsis thaliana (ecotype Columbia) developed at 4°C cold‐acclimating conditions, 23°C non‐acclimating conditions and for non‐acclimated plants shifted to 4°C (cold‐shifted). These responses were determined in planta using Chl fluorescence imaging. We show that cold acclimation results in an increased tolerance to photoinhibition in comparison with non‐acclimated plants and that growth and development at low temperature is essential for this to occur. Cold‐shifted plants were not as tolerant as the cold‐acclimated plants. In addition, we demonstrate this tolerance is as a result of growth under high PSII excitation pressure, that can be modulated by growth temperature or growth irradiance. Cold‐acclimated and cold‐shifted plants fully recover from photoinhibition in the dark, whereas non‐acclimated plants show reduced levels of recovery and demonstrate a requirement for light. The role of the PSII repair cycle, PSII quenching centres, and the use of Chl fluorescence imaging to monitor photoinhibitory responses in planta are 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 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations54
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiologia PlantarumSame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207