MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126188891 · doi:10.1111/nph.12806

Exploring <i><scp>P</scp>icea glauca</i> aquaporins in the context of needle water uptake and xylem refilling

2014· article· en· W2126188891 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Laur, Uwe G. Hacke

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXylemAquaporinVascular bundleContext (archaeology)EndodermisWater transportParenchymaBotanyBiologyTracheidPhloemVascular tissueWater flowCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conifer needles have been reported to absorb water under certain conditions. Radial water movement across needle tissues is likely influenced by aquaporin (AQP) water channels. Foliar water uptake and AQP localization in Picea glauca needles were studied using physiological and microscopic methods. AQP expression was measured using quantitative real-time PCR. Members of the AQP gene family in spruce were identified using homology search tools. Needles of drought-stressed plants absorbed water when exposed to high relative humidity (RH). AQPs were present in the endodermis-like bundle sheath, in phloem cells and in the transfusion parenchyma of needles. Up-regulation of AQPs in high RH coincided with embolism repair in stem xylem. The present study also provides the most comprehensive functional and phylogenetic analysis of spruce AQPs to date. Thirty putative complete AQP sequences were found. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that AQPs facilitate radial water movement from the needle epidermis towards the vascular tissue. Foliar water uptake may occur in late winter when needles are covered by melting snow and may provide a water source for embolism repair before the beginning of the growing season.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations116
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207