Leaflet initiation is temporally and spatially separated in simple and complex tomato (<i>Solanum lycopersicum</i>) leaf mutants: a developmental analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formation of a compound leaf requires the involvement of multiple factors, including KNOX1 gene expression. To further characterize simple and complex tomato leaf mutants, we analyzed their morphology and development by assessing: leaf phenotypes, primary leaf morphogenesis, expression of the class I KNOX gene LeT6, and meristematic activity of the marginal blastozone. Mutants with alterations in lobing and (or) pinnation (decrease/increase) were analyzed. Primary leaflet initiation is delayed in mutants with decreased lobing. In contrast, leaflet initiation is advanced or similar to the wild type in mutants with deep lobes. Leaves with increased pinnation along the rachis require a protracted developmental program to form their final leaf morphology. Using a morphometric analysis, we show that leaf complexity can be quantified. The expression pattern of LeT6 correlates with histological analysis of meristematic activity of the marginal blastozone, suggesting that LeT6 may play a role, through some unknown mechanism, to regulate meristematic competence, not only in the marginal blastozone to regulate leaflet lobing, but along the entire length of the leaf to regulate pinnation in compound leaves.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".