MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151258005 · doi:10.1093/pcp/pce065

Association of Glutathione with Flowering in Arabidopsisthaliana

2001· article· en· W2151258005 on OpenAlexaff
Kenichi Ogawa, Yasushi Tasaka, Masanobu Mino, Yoshikazu Tanaka, Masaki Iwabuchi

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant and Cell Physiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlutathioneAssociation (psychology)BiologyBotanyBiochemistryPsychologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to study the relationship between GSH and flowering, wild-type and late-flowering mutant, fca-1, of Arabidopsis thaliana were treated with L-buthionine sulfoximine (BSO), a specific inhibitor of GSH biosynthesis, under long-day conditions. BSO treatment of the fca-1 mutant starting at 17 d after imbibition promoted flowering. However, when the treatment was started at 12 d after imbibition, BSO treatment at 10(-4) M resulted in an inhibition of flowering. This inhibitory effect of BSO on flowering was abolished by GSH treatment at 10(-4) M, although GSH treatment at an increased concentration of 10(-3) M clearly delayed flowering. In contrast, BSO treatment of wild-type plants starting at 12 d after imbibition promoted flowering, whose effect was abolished by GSH application. In the fca-1 mutant, whose endogenous GSH levels were high, chilling treatment lowered the GSH levels and promoted flowering, as was the case in the BSO treatment. An A. thaliana mutant, cad2-1, which has a defect in GSH biosynthesis also exhibited late flowering. The late-flowering phenotype of this mutant tended to be strengthened by BSO and abolished by GSH treatment. These results suggest that flowering is associated with the rate of GSH biosynthesis and/or the levels of GSH in A. thaliana.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations75
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant and Cell PhysiologySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207