MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328777872 · doi:10.1021/pr400716r

Proteomics Approaches Advance Our Understanding of Plant Self-Incompatibility Response

2013· review· en· W2328777872 on OpenAlexafffund
Subramanian Sankaranarayanan, Muhammad Jamshed, Marcus A. Samuel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Proteome Research · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsProteomeProteomicsComputational biologyBiologyIsoelectric focusingBioinformaticsGeneticsGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-incompatibility (SI) in plants is a genetic mechanism that prevents self-fertilization and promotes out-crossing needed to maintain genetic diversity. SI has been classified into two broad categories: the gametophytic self-incompatibility (GSI) and the sporophytic self-incompatibility (SSI) based on the genetic mechanisms involved in 'self' pollen rejection. Recent proteomic approaches to identify potential candidates involved in SI have shed light onto a number of previously unidentified mechanisms required for SI response. SI proteome research has progressed from the use of isoelectric focusing in early days to the latest third-generation technique of comparative isobaric tag for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) used in recent times. We will focus on the proteome-based approaches used to study self-incompatibility (GSI and SSI), recent developments in the field of incompatibility research with emphasis on SSI and future prospects of using proteomic approaches to study self-incompatibility.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.377
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.058 · 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Proteome ResearchSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207