MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095256047 · doi:10.1139/b04-054

The roles of calmodulin polar distribution during pollen hydration and germination

2004· article· en· W2095256047 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wen-Jing Tao, Shuping Liang, Ying‐Tang Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPollenGerminationPollen tubeNicotiana tabacumPolarity (international relations)BotanyBiologyStamenDouble fertilizationPlant reproductionCalmodulinCell biologyPollinationBiophysicsCellGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polarity patterning of pollen germination is a vital process for angiosperm fertilization. In our study a new method was employed to investigate the real-time distribution of calmodulin (CaM) in living pollen grains and pollen tubes. The CaM–GFP fusion gene was constructed under the control of the pollen-specific promoter LAT52-7 and transformed into Nicotiana tabacum L. Through confocal laser scanning microscopy, high levels of CaM were observed to accumulate in the three germinal apertures, and a tip–base gradient of CaM was detected in elongating pollen tubes. During pollen-grain hydration and germination, one of the three germinal apertures aggregated a much higher level of CaM than the other two. In addition, CaM showed a directional migration from the cytoplasm to this germinal aperture, where the pollen tube would emerge. Interestingly, CaM was not detected in the reproductive nucleus of either pollen grains or pollen tubes. Our findings indicated that the directional migration of CaM existed during pollen hydration and germination, and this movement may play a crucial role in the normal polarity establishment of pollen germination.Key words: calmodulin, polarity, pollen grain, Nicotiana tabacum.

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 score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207