MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507468470 · doi:10.1080/15592324.2016.1223004

Arabidopsis DDB1-CUL4 E3 ligase complexes in <i>det1</i> salt/osmotic stress resistant germination

2016· article· en· W2507468470 on OpenAlexaff
Dana F. Schroeder

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Signaling & Behavior · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUbiquitin ligaseDDB1BiologyUbiquitinCell biologyGerminationOsmotic shockArabidopsisMutantBiochemistryBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key regulatory mechanism in plant growth, development, and stress signaling utilizes E3 ubiquitin ligases, which target a variety of substrates for degradation. DE-ETIOLATED 1 (DET1) forms a complex with DDB1 (DAMAGED DNA BINDING protein 1) and CUL4 (CULLIN 4), and negatively regulates light signaling. Another DDB1-CUL4 complex containing DWA1 and DWA2 (DWD hypersensitive to ABA 1 and 2) has been shown to negatively regulate abscisic acid (ABA) signaling. Since distinct DDB1-CUL4 complexes have been shown to influence each other, we analyzed genetic interactions between DET1 and components of DDB1-CUL4 complexes during seed germination under salt and osmotic stress conditions. det1 germination was resistant to salt and osmotic stress and dwa1 and dwa2 enhanced this phenotype. In contrast, ddb1a partially suppressed the det1 germination phenotype on both salt and mannitol, while ddb1b had no effect. Mutations in DDB2, a DDB1-CUL4 complex component involved in DNA repair, also partially suppressed the det1 germination phenotype while mutants in COP1, another light signaling component, completely suppressed the det1 resistant germination phenotypes. Taken together these data suggest that components of E3 ubiquitin ligase complexes have variable but significant effects on det1 salt/osmotic stress responses.

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)0.000
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 score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Signaling & BehaviorSame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207