MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112617530 · doi:10.1093/jxb/err452

The Arabidopsis mutant, fy-1, has an ABA-insensitive germination phenotype

2012· article· en· W2112617530 on OpenAlexaff
Shiling Jiang, Santosh Kumar, Young-Jae Eu, Sravan Kumar Jami, Claudio Stasolla, Robert D. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImbibitionGerminationDormancyArabidopsisMutantSeed dormancyBiologyWild typeArabidopsis thalianaBotanyHorticultureGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arabidopsis FY, a homologue of the yeast RNA 3' processing factor Pfs2p, regulates the autonomous floral transition pathway through its interaction with FCA, an RNA binding protein. It is demonstrated here that FY also influences seed dormancy. Freshly-harvested seed of the Arabidopsis fy-1 mutant germinated readily in the absence of stratification or after-ripening. Furthermore, the fy-1 mutant showed less ABA sensitivity compared with the wild type, Ler, under identical conditions. Freshly-harvested seed of fy-1 had significantly higher ABA levels than Ler, even though Ler was dormant and fy-1 germinated readily. The PPLPP domains of FY, which are required for flowering control, were not essential for the ABA-influenced repression of germination. FLC expression analysis in seeds of different genotypes suggested that the effect of FY on dormancy may not be elicited through FLC. No significant differences in CYP707A1, CYP707A2, NCED9, ABI3, and ABI4 were observed between freshly-harvested Ler and fy-1 imbibed for 48 h. GA3ox1 and GA3ox2 rapidly increased over the 48 h imbibition period for fy-1, with no significant increases in these transcripts for Ler. ABI5 levels were significantly lower in fy-1 over the 48 h imbibition period. The results suggest that FY is involved in the development of dormancy and ABA sensitivity in Arabidopsis seed.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.289
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 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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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