MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SIPK signaling controls multiple components of harpin‐induced cell death in tobacco

2005· article· en· W2149385199 on OpenAlexafffund
Marcus A. Samuel, Hardy Hall, Magdalena Krzymowska, Kinga Drzewiecka, Jacek Hennig, Brian E. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsECW Press (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPseudomonas syringaeCell biologyMAPK/ERK pathwaySignal transductionProgrammed cell deathHypersensitive responseKinaseBiologyChemistryBiochemistryGeneApoptosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harpin from Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola (HrpZ) elicits a rapid cell death response in tobacco plants. Multiple signaling components, including mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), reactive oxygen species (ROS) and salicylic acid (SA), have been reported to be involved in this cell death process, but the interaction between these molecules is poorly understood. Here we show through utilizing plants manipulated in SIPK expression levels that lack of SIPK results in increased sensitivity to harpin with concomitant accumulation of higher levels of ROS. Conversely, SIPK-overexpressing plants show reduced sensitivity to harpin relative to wild-type plants, and display reduced ROS accumulation. Harpin-induced cell death was found to be conditional on the ability of the plant to accumulate SA, whereas harpin induction of MAPK activation and ROS accumulation are not. However, harpin-induced ROS accumulation is required for activation of SIPK and wound-induced protein kinase. Transcriptional profiling revealed that suppression of SIPK signaling also affects early expression of a range of pathogen- and stress-responsive genes during harpin challenge.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations71
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207