MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104561468 · doi:10.1079/ssr2002118

The effects of potassium nitrate and NO-donors on phytochrome A- and phytochrome B-specific induced germination of<i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>seeds

2002· article· en· W2104561468 on OpenAlexaff
Ivana Batak, Marijana Dević, Zlatko Gibal, Dragoljub Grubiŝić, Kenneth L. Poff, Radomir Konjević

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed Science Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
FundersScience and Engineering Research Board
KeywordsPhytochromeGerminationSodium nitroprussideArabidopsis thalianaPotassium nitratePhytochrome ANitrateChemistryPotassiumArabidopsisNitric oxideSodium nitrateMutantBotanyHorticultureBiologyBiochemistryRed lightGeneInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nitrogenous compounds, such as potassium nitrate, potentiate germination of different species of light-requiring seeds. Using light-inducedArabidopsis thalianaseed germination as a model system, our data suggested that only phytochrome A (phyA)-specific induced germination was affected after the exogenous application of nitrates, different nitric oxide (NO)-donors (such as organic nitrates) or sodium nitroprusside. The stimulative effect was very pronounced. Treated seed samples reached maximal germination after very short periods of red-light irradiation. To a far lesser extent, these substances affected phytochrome B (phyB)-specific induced germination. In phyB-specific induced germination, potassium nitrate was most effective, but germination percentages never exceeded 50%. The least effective was sodium nitroprusside, which practically did not affect phyB-specific induced germination. These results were confirmed using corresponding phytochrome mutants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations88
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeed Science ResearchSame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207