Influence of Electric Fields and Conductivity on Pollen Tube Growth assessed via Electrical Lab-on-Chip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pollen tubes are polarly growing plant cells that are able to rapidly respond to a combination of chemical, mechanical, and electrical cues. This behavioural feature allows them to invade the flower pistil and deliver the sperm cells in highly targeted manner to receptive ovules in order to accomplish fertilization. How signals are perceived and processed in the pollen tube is still poorly understood. Evidence for electrical guidance in particular is vague and highly contradictory. To generate reproducible experimental conditions for the investigation of the effect of electric fields on pollen tube growth we developed an Electrical Lab-on-Chip (ELoC). Pollen from the species Camellia displayed differential sensitivity to electric fields depending on whether the entire cell or only its growing tip was exposed. The response to DC fields was dramatically higher than that to AC fields of the same strength. However, AC fields were found to restore and even promote pollen growth. Surprisingly, the pollen tube response correlated with the conductivity of the growth medium under different AC frequencies--consistent with the notion that the effect of the field on pollen tube growth may be mediated via its effect on the motion of ions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".