Actin microfilament and microtubule distribution patterns in the expanding root of<i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determination of the precise role(s) of actin microfilaments in the control of cell shape and elongation in the root tips of the model genetic system Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh is frustrated by inadequate microscopy imaging techniques. In this paper, we documented both microfilaments and microtubules in the root tips of Arabidopsis by double immunofluorescence labelling and computer-generated reconstruction of confocal image series. Our procedure, which complements the use of recently developed fluorescent reporter proteins, revealed hitherto undescribed aspects of the Arabidopsis microfilament cytoskeleton that may provide important clues about mechanisms behind cell elongation. We found that preservation of extensive arrays of transverse cortical microfilaments depends on unperturbed microtubule organization. Compared with ordinary epidermal cells, cells situated in the trichoblast or hair-forming cell files were comparatively devoid of endoplasmic microfilaments when in the distal elongation zone, well before hair formation begins. Computer-aided reconstructions also revealed that the nonexpanding end walls of cells in the distal elongation zone have radially oriented microtubules and randomly arranged microfilaments. In dividing cells, microfilaments became more prominent in the cell cortex, and subtle differences between microtubule and microfilament organization were seen within the phragmoplast. These observations will form the basis of understanding the roles of the cytoskeleton in controlling elongation in root tissues. In light of the many Arabidopsis mutants with altered root morphology, our methods offer a reliable approach to assess the function of cytoskeletal proteins and signalling systems in root morphogenesis.Key words: actin microfilaments, Arabidopsis thaliana, distal elongation zone, microtubules, phragmoplast, roots.
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".