MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156296988 · doi:10.1104/pp.109.143867

Conservation of <i>Lotus</i> and Arabidopsis Basic Helix-Loop-Helix Proteins Reveals New Players in Root Hair Development  

2009· article· en· W2156296988 on OpenAlexaff
Bogumil J. Karas, Lisa Amyot, Christopher Johansen, Shusei Sato, Satoshi Tabata, Masayoshi Kawaguchi, Krzysztof Szczygłowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePLANT PHYSIOLOGY · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArabidopsisBiologyRoot hairLotus japonicusComplementationGeneGeneticsBasic helix-loop-helixLotusTranscription factorLocus (genetics)Cell biologyHomology (biology)DNA-binding proteinBotanyMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) proteins constitute a large family of transcriptional regulators in plants. Although they have been shown to play important roles in a wide variety of developmental processes, relatively few have been functionally characterized. Here, we describe the map-based cloning of the Lotus japonicus ROOTHAIRLESS1 (LjRHL1) locus. Deleterious mutations in this locus prevent root hair development, which also aborts root hair-dependent colonization of the host root by nitrogen-fixing bacteria. We show that the LjRHL1 gene encodes a presumed bHLH transcription factor that functions in a nonredundant manner to control root hair development in L. japonicus. Homology search and cross-species complementation experiments defined three members of the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) bHLH protein family, At2g24260, At4g30980, and At5g58010, as functionally equivalent to LjRHL1. Curiously, At2g24260 and At4g30980 mRNA species accumulate independently from the known positive regulators of root hair cell fate, while all three genes act in a partially redundant manner to regulate root hair development in Arabidopsis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations123
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLANT PHYSIOLOGYSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207