MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100476477 · doi:10.1093/jxb/ers177

Drought induces alterations in the stomatal development program in Populus

2012· article· en· W2100476477 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin T. Hamanishi, Barb R. Thomas, Malcolm M. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Pacific Forest IndustriesUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsStomatal conductanceStomatal densityBiologyBotanyPhotosynthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much is known about the physiological control of stomatal aperture as a means by which plants adjust to water availability. By contrast, the role played by the modulation of stomatal development to limit water loss has received much less attention. The control of stomatal development in response to water deprivation in the genus Populus is explored here. Drought induced declines in stomatal conductance as well as an alteration in stomatal development in two genotypes of Populus balsamifera. Leaves that developed under water-deficit conditions had lower stomatal indices than leaves that developed under well-watered conditions. Transcript abundance of genes that could hypothetically underpin drought-responsive changes in stomatal development was examined, in two genotypes, across six time points, under two conditions, well-watered and with water deficit. Populus homologues of STOMAGEN, ERECTA (ER), STOMATA DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION 1 (SDD1), and FAMA had variable transcript abundance patterns congruent with their role in the modulation of stomatal development in response to drought. Conversely, there was no significant variation in transcript abundance between genotypes or treatments for the Populus homologues of YODA (YDA) and TOO MANY MOUTHS (TMM). The findings highlight the role that could be played by stomatal development during leaf expansion as a longer term means by which to limit water loss from leaves. Moreover, the results point to the key roles played by the regulation of the homologues of STOMAGEN, ER, SDD1, and FAMA in the control of this response in poplar.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.318
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

Citations114
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207