MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258296463 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2015.01253

Fluorescent Protein Aided Insights on Plastids and their Extensions: A Critical Appraisal

2016· review· en· W2258296463 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathleen Delfosse, Michael R. Wozny, Erica-Ashley Jaipargas, Kiah A. Barton, Cole Anderson, Jaideep Mathur

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPlastidBiologyOrganelleEndoplasmic reticulumCell biologyThylakoidCytoplasmChloroplastBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-colored fluorescent proteins targeted to plastids have provided new insights on the dynamic behavior of these organelles and their interactions with other cytoplasmic components and compartments. Sub-plastidic components such as thylakoids, stroma, the inner and outer membranes of the plastid envelope, nucleoids, plastoglobuli, and starch grains have been efficiently highlighted in living plant cells. In addition, stroma filled membrane extensions called stromules have drawn attention to the dynamic nature of the plastid and its interactions with the rest of the cell. Use of dual and triple fluorescent protein combinations has begun to reveal plastid interactions with mitochondria, the nucleus, the endoplasmic reticulum and F-actin and suggests integral roles of plastids in retrograde signaling, cell to cell communication as well as plant-pathogen interactions. While the rapid advances and insights achieved through fluorescent protein based research on plastids are commendable it is necessary to endorse meaningful observations but subject others to closer scrutiny. Here, in order to develop a better and more comprehensive understanding of plastids and their extensions we provide a critical appraisal of recent information that has been acquired using targeted fluorescent protein probes.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Plant ScienceSame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207