Self/nonself perception and recognition mechanisms in plants: a comparison of self‐incompatibility and innate immunity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyses of emerging concepts indicate that parallels exist between self-incompatibility and pathogen recognition. In the case of surveillance of 'nonself', plant immune responses are triggered either by pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) that detect conserved pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) or by resistance (R) proteins recognizing isolate-specific pathogen effectors. PAMP detection is an important component of innate immunity in plants and serves as an early warning system for the presence of potential pathogens and activation of plant defense mechanisms. In the Brassicaceae, the recognition of 'self' and self-incompatibility are components of a receptor-ligand based mechanism that utilizes an S receptor kinase (SRK) to perceive and reject 'self'-pollen. SRK is an S-domain receptor-like kinase (RLK), which in turn is part of the RLK family, some members of which represent PRRs involved in the detection of PAMPs. S-domain RLKs also occur in species that do not exhibit self-incompatibility and are up-regulated in response to wounding, PAMPs and pathogen recognition. Although evolution may have driven expansion of certain RLK families to serve roles in particular physiological processes, this may not exclude these receptor types from functioning in different programs. Recent findings on self/nonself recognition are reviewed and conceptual and mechanistic links between microbial recognition and self-incompatibility are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".