MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128494632 · doi:10.1093/jxb/erm354

<i>procera</i>is a putative DELLA mutant in tomato (<i>Solanum lycopersicum</i>): effects on the seed and vegetative plant

2008· article· en· W2128494632 on OpenAlexaff
George W. Bassel, Robert T. Mullen, J. Derek Bewley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersWageningen University and Research
KeywordsMutantBiologyPoint mutationGeneGeneticsMutationPhenotypeSolanumTransgeneWild typeGibberellic acidComplementationFusion proteinCell biologyMolecular biologyBotanyGermination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The procera (pro) mutant of tomato exhibits a well-characterized constitutive gibberellic acid (GA) response phenotype. The tomato DELLA gene LeGAI in the pro mutant background contains a point mutation that results in an amino acid change in the conserved VHVID putative DNA-binding domain in LeGAI to VHEID. This same point mutation is in four different genetic backgrounds exhibiting the pro phenotype, suggesting that this mutation co-segregates with the pro phenotype. Complementation of the mutant with a constitutively expressed wild-type LeGAI gene sequence was not conclusive due to the infertility of transgenic plants. The pro mutation alters tomato branching architecture through differential suppression of axillary bud development, indicating a role for DELLA proteins in the regulation of plant structure. Isolated gib-1 pro double mutant embryo axes, which are unable to synthesize GA, germinate faster than their wild-type counterparts, and exert greater embryo growth potential. The pro mutation is therefore regulating GA responses within the tomato embryo. Transient expression of a LeGAI-GFP (green fluorescent protein) fusion protein in onion epidermis results in its location to the nucleus, and this protein is rapidly degraded by the proteasome in the presence of GA.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations145
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207