Inflorescence development in two tomato species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inflorescence of tomato has been characterized as either a cyme or raceme. Cymose inflorescences are determinate, whereas racemose inflorescences are indeterminate. In this study, we addressed the discrepancy in inflorescence architecture by analyzing the morphology of a wild relative of tomato Solanum pimpinellifolium L. and four domesticated Solanum lycopersicum L. lines. Careful observation of developing inflorescences of both species showed a bifurcation of the meristem into a determinate floral and an indeterminate inflorescence meristem. Interestingly, higher fruit carpel number was associated with delayed floral development, which might give the impression of determinate growth in some of the lines. Nevertheless, our results demonstrated that tomato inflorescences are indeterminate in nature regardless of the line studied. Floral buds were formed concomitantly with the development of the inflorescence meristem and not on the flanks of the peduncle, a characteristic of racemose growth. Thus, tomato inflorescences should be classified as a cyme with the note that the inflorescence meristem does not terminate into a flower and, in fact, maintains indeterminacy. In addition, S. pimpinellifolium produced many more flowers in a highly regular manner when compared with the cultivated types. This demonstrated the usefulness of wild relatives of tomato as a tool to further understand flower and fruit development in this crop species.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".