MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322724736 · doi:10.1093/aob/mcw026

Insights from the pollination drop proteome and the ovule transcriptome of<i>Cephalotaxus</i>at the time of pollination drop production

2016· article· en· W2322724736 on OpenAlexafffund
Cary Pirone-Davies, Natalie Prior, Patrick von Aderkas, Derek Smith, Darryl B. Hardie, William E. Friedman, Sarah Mathews

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Botany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArnold ArboretumHarvard University
KeywordsBiologyPollinationOvulePollen tubeBotanyGymnospermPollenProteomeTranscriptomeCalloseCell wallGeneGene expressionBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Many gymnosperms produce an ovular secretion, the pollination drop, during reproduction. The drops serve as a landing site for pollen, but also contain a suite of ions and organic compounds, including proteins, that suggests diverse roles for the drop during pollination. Proteins in the drops of species of Chamaecyparis, Juniperus, Taxus, Pseudotsuga, Ephedra and Welwitschia are thought to function in the conversion of sugars, defence against pathogens, and pollen growth and development. To better understand gymnosperm pollination biology, the pollination drop proteomes of pollination drops from two species of Cephalotaxus have been characterized and an ovular transcriptome for C. sinensis has been assembled. METHODS: Mass spectrometry was used to identify proteins in the pollination drops of Cephalotaxus sinensis and C. koreana RNA-sequencing (RNA-Seq) was employed to assemble a transcriptome and identify transcripts present in the ovules of C. sinensis at the time of pollination drop production. KEY RESULTS: About 30 proteins were detected in the pollination drops of both species. Many of these have been detected in the drops of other gymnosperms and probably function in defence, polysaccharide metabolism and pollen tube growth. Other proteins appear to be unique to Cephalotaxus, and their putative functions include starch and callose degradation, among others. Together, the proteins appear either to have been secreted into the drop or to occur there due to breakdown of ovular cells during drop production. Ovular transcripts represent a wide range of gene ontology categories, and some may be involved in drop formation, ovule development and pollen-ovule interactions. CONCLUSIONS: The proteome of Cephalotaxus pollination drops shares a number of components with those of other conifers and gnetophytes, including proteins for defence such as chitinases and for carbohydrate modification such as β-galactosidase. Proteins likely to be of intracellular origin, however, form a larger component of drops from Cephalotaxus than expected from studies of other conifers. This is consistent with the observation of nucellar breakdown during drop formation in Cephalotaxus The transcriptome data provide a framework for understanding multiple metabolic processes that occur within the ovule and the pollination drop just before fertilization. They reveal the deep conservation of WUSCHEL expression in ovules and raise questions about whether any of the S-locus transcripts in Cephalotaxus ovules might be involved in pollen-ovule recognition.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of BotanySame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207