The composition of surface wax on trichomes of <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i> differs from wax on other epidermal cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary To protect plants against biotic and abiotic stress, the waxy cuticle must coat all epidermis cells. Here, two independent approaches addressed whether cell‐type‐specific differences exist between wax compositions on trichomes and other epidermal cells of Arabidopsis thaliana , possibly with different protection roles. First, the total waxes from a mutant lacking trichomes ( gl1 ) were compared to waxes from wild type and a trichome‐rich mutant ( cpc tcl1 etc1 etc3 ). In the stem wax, compounds with aliphatic chains longer than 31 carbons (derived from C 32 precursors) increased in relative abundance in cpc tcl1 etc1 etc3 over gl1 . Similarly, the leaf wax from the trichome‐rich mutant contained higher amounts of C 32+ compounds as compared to gl1 . Second, leaf trichomes were isolated, and their waxes were analyzed. The wax mixtures of the trichome‐rich mutant and the wild type were similar, comprising alkanes and alkenes as well as branched and unbranched primary alcohols. The direct analyses of trichome waxes confirmed that they contained relatively high concentrations of C 32+ compounds, compared with the pavement cell wax inferred from analysis of gl1 leaves. Finally, the cell‐type‐specific wax compositions were put into perspective with expression patterns of wax biosynthesis genes in trichomes and pavement cells. Analyses of published transcriptome data (Marks et al ., ) revealed that core enzymes involved in elongation of wax precursors to various carbon chain lengths are expressed differentially between epidermis cell types. By combining the chemical and gene expression data, we identified promising gene candidates involved in the formation of C 32+ aliphatic chains.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".