Separable Whorl-Specific Expression and Negative Regulation by Enhancer Elements within the <i>AGAMOUS</i> Second Intron
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 |
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".