The Microtubule Plus-End Binding Protein EB1 Functions in Root Responses to Touch and Gravity Signals in <i>Arabidopsis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microtubules function in concert with associated proteins that modify microtubule behavior and/or transmit signals that effect changes in growth. To better understand how microtubules and their associated proteins influence growth, we analyzed one family of microtubule-associated proteins, the END BINDING1 (EB1) proteins, in Arabidopsis thaliana (EB1a, EB1b, and EB1c). We find that antibodies directed against EB1 proteins colocalize with microtubules in roots, an observation that confirms previous reports using EB1-GFP fusions. We also find that T-DNA insertion mutants with reduced expression from EB1 genes have roots that deviate toward the left on vertical or inclined plates. Mutant roots also exhibit extended horizontal growth before they bend downward after tracking around an obstacle or after a 90 degrees clockwise reorientation of the root. These observations suggest that leftward deviations in root growth may be the result of delayed responses to touch and/or gravity signals. Root lengths and widths are normal, indicating that the delay in bend formation is not due to changes in the overall rate of growth. In addition, the genotype with the most severe defects responds to low doses of microtubule inhibitors in a manner indistinguishable from the wild type, indicating that microtubule integrity is not a major contributor to the leftward deviations in mutant root growth.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".