MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159113586 · doi:10.1104/pp.018853

Hydrotropism Interacts with Gravitropism by Degrading Amyloplasts in Seedling Roots of Arabidopsis and Radish

2003· article· en· W2159113586 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nobuyuki Takahashi, Yutaka Yamazaki, Akie Kobayashi, Atsushi Higashitani, Hideyuki Takahashi

Bibliographic record

VenuePLANT PHYSIOLOGY · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Space and Astronautical ScienceInstitute of GeneticsTokyo University of Agriculture and TechnologyTokyo University of Agriculture
KeywordsAmyloplastGravitropismRoot capSeedlingArabidopsisBotanyColumellaBiologyChemistryMutantPlastidBiochemistryMeristemChloroplastAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to a moisture gradient, roots exhibit hydrotropism to control the orientation of their growth. To exhibit hydrotropism, however, they must overcome the gravitropism that is dominant on Earth. We found that moisture gradient or water stress caused immediate degradation of the starch anchors, amyloplasts, in root columella cells of Arabidopsis and radish (Raphanus sativus). Namely, development of hydrotropic response was accompanied by a simultaneous reduction in starch content in columella cells. Rapid degradation of amyloplasts in columella cells also occurred in the water-stressed roots with sorbitol or mannitol. Both hydrotropically stimulated and water-stressed roots showed a reduced responsiveness to gravity. Roots of a starchless mutant, pgm1-1, showed an enhanced hydrotropism compared with that of the wild type. These results suggest that the reduced responsiveness to gravity is, at least in part, attributable to the degradation of amyloplasts in columella cells. Thus, the reduction in gravitropism allows the roots to exhibit hydrotropism.

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 score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations145
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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