Compound leaf development in the palm <i>Chamaedorea elegans</i> is KNOX‐independent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: How a leaf acquires its shape is a major and largely unresolved question in plant biology. This problem is particularly complex in the case of compound leaves, where the leaf blade is subdivided into leaflets. In many eudicots with compound leaves, class I KNOTTED1-LIKE HOMEOBOX (KNOX) genes are upregulated in the leaf primordium and promote leaflet initiation, while KNOX genes are restricted to the shoot apical meristem in simple-leaved plants. In monocots, however, little is known about the extent of KNOX contribution to compound leaf development, and we aimed to address this issue in the palm Chamaedorea elegans. METHODS: We investigated the accumulation pattern of KNOX proteins in shoot apical meristems and leaf primordia of the palm C. elegans using immunolocalization experiments. KEY RESULTS: KNOX proteins accumulated in vegetative and inflorescence apical meristems and in the subtending stem tissue, but not in the plicated regions of the leaf primordia. These plicated areas form during primary morphogenesis and are the only meristematic tissue in the developing primordium. In addition, KNOX proteins did not accumulate in any region of the developing leaf during secondary morphogenesis, when leaflets separate to create the final pinnately compound leaf. CONCLUSIONS: The compound leaf character in palms, C. elegans in particular and likely other pinnately compound palms, does not depend on the activities of KNOX proteins.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".