The cell wall‐targeted purple acid phosphatase At<scp>PAP</scp>25 is critical for acclimation of <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i> to nutritional phosphorus deprivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant purple acid phosphatases (PAPs) belong to a relatively large gene family whose individual functions are poorly understood. Three PAP isozymes that are up-regulated in the cell walls of phosphate (Pi)-starved (-Pi) Arabidopsis thaliana suspension cells were purified and identified by MS as AtPAP12 (At2g27190), AtPAP25 (At4g36350) and AtPAP26 (At5g34850). AtPAP12 and AtPAP26 were previously isolated from the culture medium of -Pi cell cultures, and shown to be secreted by roots of Arabidopsis seedlings to facilitate Pi scavenging from soil-localized organophosphates. AtPAP25 exists as a 55 kDa monomer containing complex NX(S/T) glycosylation motifs at Asn172, Asn367 and Asn424. Transcript profiling and immunoblotting with anti-AtPAP25 immune serum indicated that AtPAP25 is exclusively synthesized under -Pi conditions. Coupled with potent mixed-type inhibition of AtPAP25 by Pi (I50 = 50 μm), this indicates a tight feedback control by Pi that prevents AtPAP25 from being synthesized or functioning as a phosphatase except when Pi levels are quite low. Promoter-GUS reporter assays revealed AtPAP25 expression in shoot vascular tissue of -Pi plants. Development of an atpap25 T-DNA insertion mutant was arrested during cultivation on soil lacking soluble Pi, but rescued upon Pi fertilization or complementation with AtPAP25. Transcript profiling by quantitative RT-PCR indicated that Pi starvation signaling was attenuated in the atpap25 mutant. AtPAP25 exhibited near-optimal phosphatase activity with several phosphoproteins and phosphoamino acids as substrates. We hypothesize that AtPAP25 plays a key signaling role during Pi deprivation by functioning as a phosphoprotein phosphatase rather than as a non-specific scavenger of Pi from extracellular P-monoesters.
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 | 0.001 |
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".