The relationship between -mannosidase and endo- -mannanase activities in tomato seeds during and following germination: a comparison of seed populations and individual seeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
beta-Mannosidase and endo-beta-mannanase are involved in the mobilization of the mannan-containing cell walls of the tomato seed endosperm. The activities of both enzymes increase in a similar temporal manner in the micropylar and lateral endosperm during and following germination. This increase in enzyme activities in the micropylar endosperm is not markedly reduced in seeds imbibed in abscisic acid although, in the lateral endosperm, endo-beta-mannanase activity is more suppressed by this inhibitor than is the activity of beta-mannosidase. Gibberellin-deficient (gib-1) mutants of tomato do not germinate unless imbibed in gibberellin; low beta-mannosidase activity, and no endo-beta-mannanase activity is present in seeds imbibed in water, but both enzymes increase strongly in activity in the seeds imbibed in the growth regulator. For production of full activity of both beta-mannosidase and endo-beta-mannanase in the endosperm, this tissue must be in contact with the embryo for at least the first 6 h of imbibition, which is indicative of a stimulus diffusing from the embryo to the endosperm during this time. These results suggest some correlation between the activities of beta-mannosidase and endo-beta-mannanase, particularly in the micropylar endosperm, in populations of tomato seeds imbibed in water, abscisic acid and gibberellin. However, when individual micropylar endosperm parts are used to examine the effect of the growth regulators and of imbibition in water on the production of the two enzymes, it is apparent that within these individual seed parts there may be large differences in the amount of enzyme activity present. Micropylar endosperms with high endo-beta-mannanase activity do not necessarily have high beta-mannosidase activity, and vice versa, which is indicative of a lack of co-ordination of the activities of these two enzymes within individuals of a population.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".