MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103110825 · doi:10.1111/tpj.12516

Arabidopsis guard cell integrity involves the epigenetic stabilization of the <i><scp>FLP</scp></i> and <i><scp>FAMA</scp></i> transcription factor genes

2014· article· en· W2103110825 on OpenAlexafffund
EunKyoung Lee, Jessica R. Lucas, Justin Goodrich, Fred D. Sack

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyCell fate determinationArabidopsisTranscription factorCell biologyGeneTransgeneEpigeneticsPhenotypeGuard cellGeneticsMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arabidopsis guard cell (GC) fate is conferred via a transient pulse of expression of FAMA that encodes a bHLH transcription factor. Stomata often function for years, suggesting that the FAMA expression window stabilizes long-term GC identity or that additional factors operate. Transgenic lines harboring a copy of a FAMA transgene were found to induce the fate resetting of mature GCs to that of lineage-specific stem cells causing new stomata to arise within shells of the old, a Stoma-in-Stoma (SIS) phenotype. These lines disrupt the normal trimethylation on lysine 27 of histone3 (H3K27me3) on stomatal stem cell genes, a phenotype rescued by constitutive expression of the Polycomb Group (PcG) gene CURLY LEAF. Thus the stability of stomatal fate is enforced by a PcG-mediated reduction in the transcriptional accessibility of stem cell genes and by the endogenous FAMA gene itself. Moreover, a transgenic FOUR LIPS gene, which encodes a MYB protein that is not required for GC fate, also induces a SIS phenotype and disrupts H3K27 trimethylation. Thus FLP might indirectly enforce GC fate as well.

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 score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations71
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207