Differential Coloring Reveals That Plastids Do Not Form Networks for Exchanging Macromolecules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroma-filled tubules named stromules are sporadic extensions of plastids. Earlier, photobleaching was used to demonstrate fluorescent protein diffusion between already interconnected plastids and formed the basis for suggesting that all plastids are able to form networks for exchanging macromolecules. However, a critical appraisal of literature shows that this conjecture is not supported by unequivocal experimental evidence. Here, using photoconvertible mEosFP, we created color differences between similar organelles that enabled us to distinguish clearly between organelle fusion and nonfusion events. Individual plastids, despite conveying a strong impression of interactivity and fusion, maintained well-defined boundaries and did not exchange fluorescent proteins. Moreover, the high pleomorphy of etioplasts from dark-grown seedlings, leucoplasts from roots, and assorted plastids in the accumulation and replication of chloroplasts5 (arc5), arc6, and phosphoglucomutase1 mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana suggested that a single plastid unit might be easily mistaken for interconnected plastids. Our observations provide succinct evidence to refute the long-standing dogma of interplastid connectivity. The ability to create and maintain a large number of unique biochemical factories in the form of singular plastids might be a key feature underlying the versatility of green plants as it provides increased internal diversity for them to combat a wide range of environmental fluctuations and stresses.
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".