Comparison of lignin deposition in three ectopic lignification mutants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arabidopsis thaliana mutants de-etiolated3 (det3), pom-pom1 (pom1) and ectopic lignification1 (eli1) all deposit lignins in cells where these polymers would not normally be found. Comparison of these mutants provides an opportunity to determine if the shared mutant phenotype arose by perturbing a common regulatory mechanism in each of the mutants. The mutants were compared using a combination of genetics, histochemistry, chemical profiling, transcript profiling using both Northern blots and microarrays, and bioinformatics. The subset of cells that ectopically lignified was shared between all three mutants, but clear differences in cell wall chemistry were evident between the mutants. Northern blot analysis of lignin biosynthetic genes over diurnal and circadian cycles revealed that transcript abundance of several key genes was clearly altered in all three mutants. Microarray analysis suggests that changes in the expression of specific members of the R2R3-MYB and Dof transcription factor families may contribute to the ectopic lignification phenotypes. This comparative analysis provides a suite of hypotheses that can be tested to examine the control of lignin biosynthesis.
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".