Overexpression of PIP2;5 Aquaporin Alleviates Effects of Low Root Temperature on Cell Hydraulic Conductivity and Growth in Arabidopsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of low root temperature on growth and root cell water transport were compared between wild-type Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) and plants overexpressing plasma membrane intrinsic protein 1;4 (PIP1;4) and PIP2;5. Descending root temperature from 25°C to 10°C quickly reduced cell hydraulic conductivity (L(p)) in wild-type plants but did not affect L(p) in plants overexpressing PIP1;4 and PIP2;5. Similarly, when the roots of wild-type plants were exposed to 10°C for 1 d, L(p) was lower compared with 25°C. However, there was no effect of low root temperature on L(p) in PIP1;4- and PIP2;5-overexpressing plants after 1 d of treatment. When the roots were exposed to 10°C for 5 d, L(p) was reduced in wild-type plants and in plants overexpressing PIP1;4, whereas there was still no effect in PIP2;5-overexpressing plants. These results suggest that the gating mechanism in PIP1;4 may be more sensitive to prolonged low temperature compared with PIP2;5. The reduction of L(p) at 10°C in roots of wild-type plants was partly restored to the preexposure level by 5 mm Ca(NO(3))(2) and protein phosphatase inhibitors (75 nm okadaic acid or 1 μm Na(3)VO(4)), suggesting that aquaporin phosphorylation/dephosphorylation processes were involved in this response. The temperature sensitivity of cell water transport in roots was reflected by a reduction in shoot and root growth rates in the wild-type and PIP1;4-overexpressing plants exposed to 10°C root temperature for 5 d. However, low root temperature had no effect on growth in plants overexpressing PIP2;5. These results provide strong evidence for a link between growth at low root temperature and aquaporin-mediated root water transport in Arabidopsis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".