MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121150295 · doi:10.1105/tpc.12.10.1799

Separable Whorl-Specific Expression and Negative Regulation by Enhancer Elements within the <i>AGAMOUS</i> Second Intron

2000· article· en· W2121150295 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Cell · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAgamousBiologyGeneticsWhorl (mollusc)EnhancerGynoeciumStamenGeneIntronGene expressionArabidopsisMADS-boxCell biologyHomeotic geneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyzed the 4-kb intragenic control region of the AGAMOUS (AG) gene to gain insight into the mechanisms controlling its expression during early flower development. We identified three major expression patterns conferred by 19 AG::reporter gene constructs: the normal AG pattern, a stamen-specific pattern, and a predominantly carpel pattern. To determine whether these three expression patterns were under negative control by APETALA2 (AP2) or LEUNIG (LUG), we analyzed beta-glucuronidase staining patterns in Arabidopsis plants homozygous for strong ap2 and lug mutations. Our results indicated that the stamen-specific pattern was independent of AP2 but dependent on LUG; conversely, the carpel-specific pattern was independent of LUG but dependent on AP2. These results lead to a model of control of AG expression such that expression in each of the two inner whorls is under independent positive and negative control.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.190 · 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