MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101396501 · doi:10.1104/pp.108.126946

Unique and Overlapping Expression Patterns among Members of Photosynthesis-Associated Nuclear Gene Families in Arabidopsis  

2008· article· en· W2101396501 on OpenAlexaff
Megan G. Sawchuk, Tyler J. Donner, Philip Head, Enrico Scarpella

Bibliographic record

VenuePLANT PHYSIOLOGY · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArabidopsisBiologyGene expressionArabidopsis thalianaGeneGene familyGeneticsRegulation of gene expressionCell biologyMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Light provides crucial positional information in plant development, and the morphogenetic processes that are orchestrated by light signals are triggered by changes of gene expression in response to variations in light parameters. Control of expression of members of the RbcS and Lhc families of photosynthesis-associated nuclear genes by light cues is a paradigm for light-regulated gene transcription, but high-resolution expression profiles for these gene families are lacking. In this study, we have investigated expression patterns of members of the RbcS and Lhc gene families in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) at the cellular level during undisturbed development and upon controlled interference of the light environment. Members of the RbcS and Lhc gene families are expressed in specialized territories, including root tip, leaf adaxial, abaxial, and epidermal domains, and with distinct chronologies, identifying successive stages of leaf mesophyll ontogeny. Defined spatial and temporal overlap of gene expression fields suggest that the light-harvesting and photosynthetic apparatus may have a different polypeptide composition in different cells and that such composition could change over time even within the same cell.

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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations97
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLANT PHYSIOLOGYSame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207