MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163033636 · doi:10.1104/pp.112.200584

Individual Maize Chromosomes in the C3 Plant Oat Can Increase Bundle Sheath Cell Size and Vein Density  

2012· article· en· W2163033636 on OpenAlexaff
Ben J. Tolley, Tammy L. Sage, Jane A. Langdale, Julian M. Hibberd

Bibliographic record

VenuePLANT PHYSIOLOGY · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAvenaVascular bundlePhosphoenolpyruvate carboxylaseBiologyBotanyPhotosynthesisPoaceaeGeneC4 photosynthesisBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C(4) photosynthesis has evolved in at least 66 lineages within the angiosperms and involves alterations to the biochemistry, cell biology, and development of leaves. The characteristic "Kranz" anatomy of most C(4) leaves was discovered in the 1890s, but the genetic basis of these traits remains poorly defined. Oat × maize addition lines allow the effects of individual maize (Zea mays; C(4)) chromosomes to be investigated in an oat (Avena sativa; C(3)) genetic background. Here, we have determined the extent to which maize chromosomes can introduce C(4) characteristics into oat and have associated any C(4)-like changes with specific maize chromosomes. While there is no indication of a simultaneous change to C(4) biochemistry, leaf anatomy, and ultrastructure in any of the oat × maize addition lines, the C(3) oat leaf can be modified at multiple levels. Maize genes encoding phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase, pyruvate, orthophosphate dikinase, and the 2'-oxoglutarate/malate transporter are expressed in oat and generate transcripts of the correct size. Three maize chromosomes independently cause increases in vein density, and maize chromosome 3 results in larger bundle sheath cells with increased cell wall lipid deposition in oat leaves. These data provide proof of principle that aspects of C(4) biology could be integrated into leaves of C(3) crops.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLANT PHYSIOLOGYSame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207