MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169529285 · doi:10.1139/y05-108

Will you let me use your nucleus? How <i>Agrobacterium</i> gets its T-DNA expressed in the host plant cellThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled The Nucleus: A Cell Within A Cell.

2006· review· en· W2169529285 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Benoît Lacroix, Jianxiong Li, Tzvi Tzfira, Vitaly Citovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyChromatinDNAHost (biology)CytoplasmAgrobacteriumGenomeEffectorGeneticsGeneHistoneNucleusCell biologyTransformation (genetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agrobacterium is the only known bacterium capable of natural DNA transfer into a eukaryotic host. The genes transferred to host plants are contained on a T-DNA (transferred DNA) molecule, the transfer of which begins with its translocation, along with several effector proteins, from the bacterial cell to the host-cell cytoplasm. In the host cytoplasm, the T-complex is formed from a single-stranded copy of the T-DNA (T-strand) associated with several bacterial and host proteins and it is imported into the host nucleus via interactions with the host nuclear import machinery. Once inside the nucleus, the T-complex is most likely directed to the host genome by associating with histones. Finally, the chromatin-associated T-complex is uncoated from its escorting proteins prior to the conversion of the T-strand to a double-stranded form and its integration into the host genome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.007

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 head0.239
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207