Poplar genes encoding fasciclin‐like arabinogalactan proteins are highly expressed in tension wood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Fifteen poplar cDNA encoding fasciclin-like arabinogalactan proteins (PopFLAs) were finely characterized, whereas the presence of arabinogalactan proteins (AGPs) was globally assessed during wood formation. • PopFLAs transcript accumulation was analysed through EST distribution in cDNA libraries, semi-quantitative RT-PCR, microarray experiment and Northern blot analysis. Similarly, AGPs contents were globally quantified by rocket electrophoresis. AGPs accumulation was further examined by Western blotting and immunocytolocalization. • Ten PopFLAs were specifically expressed in tension wood (TW) and not expressed in the cambial zone. Rocket electrophoresis revealed important AGPs accumulation in TW xylem. An anti-AGPs specific antibody recognized two proteins preferentially present in the cell wall-bound fraction from TW. Immunocytochemistry revealed a strong labelling close to the inner part of the G-layer of TW fibres. • PopFLAs are expressed in xylem and many are up-regulated in TW. It is suggested that some PopFLAs accumulating at the inner side of the G-layer may have a specific function in the building of this layer. PopFLAs expression may therefore be linked to the specific mechanical properties of TW.
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 | 0.000 | 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".