MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223552447

The Effects of Altered Carbohydrate Metabolism on Plant Growth and Cellulose Biosynthesis

2005· article· en· W2223552447 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Canam, Heather D. Coleman, Ji Young Park, David Ellis, Shawn D Mansield

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSucroseSucrose synthaseFructoseBiochemistrySucrose-phosphate synthaseInvertaseCarbohydrateCarbohydrate metabolismCelluloseMetabolismChemistryGlycosyltransferaseBiologyGene
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Directed manipulation of the wood chemistry of trees could have huge impacts on both the environmental and economic aspects of wood processing, and more specifically, the pulp and paper industry. The goals of this research were to elucidate the effects of over-expressing genes involved in sucrose metabolism on plant growth and cellulose content (carbohydrate allocation), including: sucrose synthase (SuSy), sucrose phosphate synthase (SPS), invertase and UDP-glucose pyrophosphorylase (UGPase). It has previously been shown that SUSY converts sucrose directly into UDPG and fructose; SPS synthesizes sucrose phosphate from fructose-6-phophate and UDP-glucose; invertase catalyzes the breakdown of sucrose to glucose and fructose; and UGPase produces UDP-glucose from UTP and glucose-1-phosphate. Plants were transformed with each gene independently under the regulatory control of two different promoters: the over-expressing constitutive 2 35S promoter and the vascular (xylem) specific 4CL promoter. This research demonstrates altered carbon partitioning by over-expression these key genes which influences carbohydrate metabolism and consequently, fibre development and yield.

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)0.001
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 score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Collective Bargaining in the AcademySame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207