MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140845126 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2014-0202

Antheridiogen and abscisic acid affect conversion and <i>ANI1</i> expression in <i>Ceratopteris richardii</i> gametophytes

2014· article· en· W2140845126 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael T. Ganger, Julia A. Girouard, Hannah M. Smith, Beth A. Bahny, Sarah J. Ewing

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiology Department, Gannon University
KeywordsBiologyAbscisic acidGametophyteBotanyAffect (linguistics)BiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of male Ceratopteris richardii Brongn. gametophytes (induction) is well studied. Males develop in response to hermaphrodite-produced antheridiogen, which coincides with induced expression of ANI1 (antheridiogen-induced 1). Induction is blocked by exogenous abscisic acid (ABA). Conversion of male gametophytes to hermaphrodites occurs when males are removed from antheridiogen and is a less understood process. In this study, males were exposed to ABA at 0 μmol·L −1 , 1 μmol·L −1 , 10 μmol·L −1 , 100 μmol·L −1 , and 300 μmol·L −1 and monitored for conversion. RT-qPCR methodology was developed to examine ANI1 expression levels in gametophytes outside of induction. Conversion of male gametophytes occurred more often and more quickly in media lacking ABA, and at lower ABA concentrations than at higher concentrations. ANI1 expression dropped significantly in males transferred to media lacking antheridiogen, but remained high in males remaining in the presence of antheridiogen and in those transferred to ABA. ANI1 expression was higher in 24 day old hermaphrodites relative to 24 day old males and at comparable expression levels to 6 day old gametophytes. These results suggest ABA serves a distinct role in conversion compared with induction, and ANI1 is expressed throughout the male’s lifespan and in older hermaphrodites.

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 score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207