MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094835476 · doi:10.1139/b08-038

Suberin lamellae of the onion root endodermis: their pattern of development and continuity

2008· article· en· W2094835476 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
C. Ishari Waduwara, Shantel E. Walcott, Carol A. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Surface Properties and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSuberinEndodermisLamella (surface anatomy)BiologyXylemBotanyUltrastructureCytoplasmApoplastAnatomyBiophysicsCell wallCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many plant species, suberin lamellae are deposited in the cells of the endodermis. Some cells near the xylem poles tend to remain without these lamellae and are known as “passage cells”. To develop a three-dimensional picture of the pattern of suberin lamella deposition, procedures were developed to isolate large pieces of onion endodermis and to stain their suberin lamellae for various types of microscopy. Sudan red 7B proved satisfactory with white-light, Fluorol yellow and berberine with epifluorescence, and Nile red with confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Lamella deposition commenced in a few cells 10 mm from the root tip and then proceeded in a scattered manner. However, lamella deposition in more cells (seen 125–155 mm from the root tip) resulted in the formation of longitudinal files of cells with lamellae alternating with files of passage cells. In older regions (255–285 mm from the tip), almost all cells had deposited suberin lamellae, leaving only a few passage cells. At higher magnification, three-dimensional reconstructions of CLSM images of endodermal suberin lamellae revealed that they are perforated by pores all along the roots. Such pores could serve as points for water and ions to enter the cytoplasm of the endodermis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Surface Properties and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207