MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158592979 · doi:10.1093/jxb/eri112

Characterization of antifreeze activity in Antarctic plants

2005· article· en· W2158592979 on OpenAlexfundno aff
León A. Bravo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut chilien de l'AntarctiqueUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsAntifreeze proteinAntifreezeApoplastFreezing toleranceBotanyIce formationChemistryBiologyBiochemistryCell wallGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deschampsia antarctica and Colobanthus quitensis are the only vascular plants to have colonized the Maritime Antarctic, which is characterized by its permanently low temperature and frequent summer frosts. To understand how the plants survive freezing temperatures year-round, antifreeze activity was assayed in apoplastic extracts obtained from both non-acclimated and cold-acclimated Antarctic plants. By observing the shape of ice crystals grown in dilution series of the extracts, it was found that D. antarctica had antifreeze activity, but C. quitensis did not. D. antarctica exhibited antifreeze activity in the non-acclimated state and this activity increased after cold acclimation. The antifreeze activity in D. antarctica was labile to proteolysis and high temperature, active over a wide pH range, and associated with molecules greater than 10 kDa in molecular weight. These results show that D. antarctica produces antifreeze proteins that are secreted into the apoplast. When examined by SDS-PAGE, the apoplastic extracts from cold-acclimated D. antarctica exhibited 13 polypeptides. It is concluded that D. antarctica accumulates AFPs as part of its mechanism of freezing tolerance. Moreover, this is the first plant in which antifreeze activity has been observed to be constitutive.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations105
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207