MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095748284 · doi:10.1093/pcp/pcs037

Arginase Induction Represses Gall Development During Clubroot Infection in Arabidopsis

2012· article· en· W2095748284 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Gravot, Carole Deleu, Geoffrey Wagner, Christine Lariagon, Raphaël Lugan, Christopher D. Todd, David Wendehenne, Régine Delourme, Alain Bouchereau, Maria Manzanares–Dauleux

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant and Cell Physiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique
KeywordsArginaseClubrootBiologyAuxinArabidopsisCallusMutantJasmonateArabidopsis thalianaGallCytokininCell biologyBiochemistryBotanyGeneArginineAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arginase induction can play a defensive role through the reduction of arginine availability for phytophageous insects. Arginase activity is also induced during gall growth caused by Plasmodiophora brassicae infection in roots of Arabidopsis thaliana; however, its possible role in this context has been unclear. We report here that the mutation of the arginase-encoding gene ARGAH2 abrogates clubroot-induced arginase activity and results in enhanced gall size in infected roots, suggesting that arginase plays a defensive role. Induction of arginase activity in infected roots was impaired in the jar1 mutant, highlighting a link between the arginase response to clubroot and jasmonate signaling. Clubroot-induced accumulation of the principal amino acids in galls was not affected by the argah2 mutation. Because ARGAH2 was previously reported to control auxin response, we investigated the role of ARGAH2 in callus induction. ARGAH2 was found to be highly induced in auxin/cytokinin-triggered aseptic plant calli, and callus development was enhanced in argah2 in the absence of the pathogen. We hypothesized that arginase contributes to a negative control over clubroot symptoms, by reducing hormone-triggered cellular proliferation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations59
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant and Cell PhysiologySame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207