MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097443157 · doi:10.1093/jxb/erm204

Ionic currents and ion fluxes in Neurospora crassa hyphae

2007· article· en· W2097443157 on OpenAlexafffund
Roger R. Lew

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIonNeurospora crassaChemistryIon transporterIonic bondingAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Membrane potentialBiophysicsFlux (metallurgy)BiochemistryBiologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Voltage dependence of ionic currents and ion fluxes in a walled, turgor-regulating cell were measured in Neurospora crassa. The hyphal morphology of the model organism Neurospora simplifies cable analysis of ionic currents to determine current density for quantitative comparisons with ion fluxes. The ion fluxes were measured directly and non-invasively with self-referencing ion-selective microelectrodes. Four ions (H(+), Ca(2+), K(+), and Cl(-)) were examined. H(+) net uptake and Ca(2+) net release were small (10.2 nmol m(-2) s(-1) and 1.1 nmol m(-2) s(-1), respectively) and voltage independent. K(+) and Cl(-) fluxes were larger and voltage dependent. Maximal K(+) net release ( approximately 1440 nmol m(-2) s(-1)) was observed at positive voltages (+15 mV), while maximal Cl(-) net release ( approximately 905 nmol m(-2) s(-1)) was observed at negative voltage (-210 mV). A possible function of the net outward K(+) and Cl(-) fluxes is regulation of the plasma membrane potential. Total ion fluxes were 37-58% of the total ionic current density (about +/-244 mA m(-2), equivalent to +/-2500 nmol m(-2) s(-1), at 0 mV and -200 mV) so other ions must contribute significantly to the ionic currents.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207