MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149898327 · doi:10.5539/jps.v3n1p1

Contribution of Lignin and Non-Lignin Dependent Responses in Protein Fraction-Interacted Plant Tissue

2013· article· en· W2149898327 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ashraf Gholizadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Gene Expression Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Tabriz
KeywordsLigninPhenylpropanoidSunflowerHelianthus annuusPhenylalanine ammonia-lyaseChemistryPolyphenol oxidaseBiochemistryHelianthusPeroxidaseCell wallBotanyEnzymeFood scienceBiologyHorticultureBiosynthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a basic investigation, considering sunflower (Helianthus annuus) a highly lignified seed plant in contrast to fern (Nephrolepsis exaltata) as pteridophyte, the leaf tissues of Nephrolepsis were allowed to be interacted with the (NH4)2 SO4 protein fractions of Helianthus leaves. The results showed that the (NH4)2 SO4 60-100% fraction is able to increase the activities of phenylpropanoid/polyphenolic pathway enzymes including phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL), polyphone oxidase (PPO) and peroxidase (POD) in leaf tissues of Nephrolepsis. Comparing changed percentage in lignin contents, antioxidative abilities, total flavonoids and carotenoids content with the changes in the enzymes activities different contributions of lignin and non-lignin dependent responses in the interacted tissues were observed. For the first ever time report, the present findings not only quantify the approximate dividend of the lignin and non-lignin dependent routs in phenylpropanoid pathway but also may state the question: whether a signaling element is present in the protein fraction of sunflower leaves?

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant StudiesSame topicPlant Gene Expression AnalysisFrench-language works237,207