MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150627854 · doi:10.1093/jxb/eru129

A survey of Populus PIN-FORMED family genes reveals their diversified expression patterns

2014· article· en· W2150627854 on OpenAlexaff
Bobin Liu, Jin Zhang, Lin Wang, Jianbo Li, Huanquan Zheng, Jun Chen, Mengzhu Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsArabidopsisAuxinCambiumBiologyPolar auxin transportGene familyCell biologyBotanyEndoplasmic reticulumGeneRegeneration (biology)XylemPhloemGenomeGeneticsMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The plant hormone auxin is a key regulator of plant development, and its uneven distribution maintained by polar intercellular auxin transport in plant tissues can trigger a wide range of developmental processes. Although the roles of PIN-FORMED (PIN) proteins in intercellular auxin flow have been extensively characterized in Arabidopsis, their roles in woody plants remain unclear. Here, a comprehensive analysis of PIN proteins in Populus is presented. Fifteen PINs are encoded in the genome of Populus, including four PIN1s, one PIN2, two PIN3s, three PIN5s, three PIN6s, and two PIN8s. Similar to Arabidopsis AtPIN proteins, PtPINs share conserved topology and transmembrane domains, and are either plasma membrane- or endoplasmic reticulum-localized. The more diversified expansion of the PIN family in Populus, comparing to that in Arabidopsis, indicates that some auxin-regulated developmental processes, such as secondary growth, may exhibit unique features in trees. More importantly, different sets of PtoPINs have been found to be strongly expressed in the roots, leaves, and cambium in Populus; the dynamic expression patterns of selected PtoPINs were further examined during the regeneration of shoots and roots. This genome-wide analysis of the Populus PIN family provides important cues for their potential roles in tree growth and development.

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 score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations60
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207