Abaxial Greening Phenotype in Hybrid Aspen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The typical angiosperm leaf, as in Arabidopsis, is bifacial consisting of top (adaxial) and bottom (abaxial) surfaces readily distinguishable by the underlying cell type (palisade and spongy mesophyll, respectively). Species of the genus Populus have leaves that are either conventionally bifacial or isobilateral. Isobilateral leaves have palisade mesophyll on the top and bottom of the leaf, making the two sides virtually indistinguishable at the macroscopic level. In poplars this has been termed the "abaxial greening" phenotype. Previous work has implicated ASYMMETRIC LEAVES1 (AS1) as an essential determinant of palisade mesophyll development. This gene, as well as other genes (84 in all) putatively involved in setting the dorsiventral axis of leaves, were investigated in two Populus species: black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and hybrid aspen (P. tremula x tremuloides), representative of each leaf type (bifacial and isobilateral, respectively). Poplar orthologs of AS1 have significantly higher expression in aspen leaf blade and lower in the petiole, suggestive of a potential role in the isobilateral leaf phenotype consistent with the previously observed phenotypes. Furthermore, an ABERRANT TESTA SHAPE (ATS) ortholog has significantly lower expression in aspen leaf tissue, also suggesting a possible contribution of this gene to abaxial greening.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".