MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218098536 · doi:10.3732/ajb.1500056

The <i>FOUR LIPS</i> and <i>MYB88</i> transcription factor genes are widely expressed in <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i> during development

2015· article· en· W2218098536 on OpenAlexaff
EunKyoung Lee, Sandra Roshini Keerthisinghe, Lien B. Lai, Meng Li, Jessica Lucas, Xiaohong Wen, Xiaolin Ren, Fred D. Sack

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMinistry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of ChinaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsBiologyMYBGeneTranscription factorArabidopsisArabidopsis thalianaGeneticsMADS-boxGUS reporter systemTranscription (linguistics)Gene expressionCell biologyReporter geneMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PREMISE OF THE STUDY: The FOUR LIPS (FLP) and MYB88 transcription factors, which are closely related in structure and function, control the development of stomata, as well as entry into megasporogenesis in Arabidopsis thaliana. However, other locations where these transcription factors are expressed are poorly described. Documenting additional locations where these genes are expressed might define new functions for these genes. METHODS: Expression patterns were examined throughout vegetative and reproductive development. The expression from two transcriptional-reporter fusions were visualized with either β-glucuronidase (GUS) or green fluorescence protein (GFP). KEY RESULTS: Both flp and myb88 genes were expressed in many, previously unreported locations, consistent with the possibility of additional functions for FLP and MYB88. Moreover, expression domains especially of FLP display sharp cutoffs or boundaries. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to stomatal and reproductive development, FLP and MYB88, which are R2R3 MYB transcription factor genes, are expressed in many locations in cells, tissues, and organs.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.230
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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207