MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144314600 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005774

Compatible Pollinations in Solanum chacoense Decrease Both S-RNase and S-RNase mRNA

2009· article· en· W2144314600 on OpenAlexaff
Bolin Liu, David Morse, Mario Cappadocia

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollenRNase PPollen tubeBiologyRNase MRPRNase PHRibonucleasePloidyGeneticsBotanyPollinationRNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gametophytic self-incompatibility (GSI) allows plants to block fertilization by haploid pollen whose S-allele constitution matches one of the two S-alleles in the diploid styles. GSI in Solanum chacoense requires a stylar S-RNase, first secreted from cells of the transmitting tract then imported into incompatible (self) pollen tubes. However, the molecular mechanisms allowing compatible pollen to evade S-RNase attack are less clear, as compatible pollen tubes also import S-RNase. Using styles of the same age and size in order to lower the degree of inter-style variability in S-RNase levels, we observe reduction of up to 30% of the total non-self stylar S-RNase in vivo during compatible crosses, whereas no degradation of self S-RNases is detected. This marked difference in stylar S-RNase levels dovetails with measurements of pollen-specific Lat52 mRNA, which decreases four-fold in incompatible compared to compatible crosses. Unexpectedly, we also find evidence for a reciprocal signaling mechanism from compatible pollen to the cells of the transmitting tract that results in a roughly three-fold decrease in S-RNase transcript levels. These findings reveal a previously unsuspected feedback loop that may help reinforce the compatible reaction.

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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207