MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548596035 · doi:10.1080/07929978.2016.1246147

Comparisons of the<i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>High-affinity Nitrate Transporter Complex AtNRT2.1/AtNAR2.1 and the<i>Aspergillus nidulans</i>AnNRTA: structure function considerations

2016· article· en· W2548596035 on OpenAlexafffund
Zorica Kotur, Shiela E. Unkles, Anthony D. M. Glass

Bibliographic record

VenueIsrael Journal of Plant Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAspergillus nidulansArabidopsis thalianaContext (archaeology)NitrateMutantBiochemistryAmino acidBiologyYeastArabidopsisChemistryBotanyGeneEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The high-affinity nitrate transporter of green plants is composed of two polypeptides, NRT2.1 and NAR2.1, while in fungi it appears that nitrate influx is mediated by NRT2 alone. Another difference between plants and fungi is that the central (cytoplasmic) loop of the 12 membrane spanning regions of NRT is quite large in fungi, consisting of 91 amino acid residues, compared with the relatively short (21 amino acid residues) plant NRT2.1. Here we examine potential amino acid residues involved in the plant NRT2.1:NAR2.1 association by mutation of conserved amino acids in Arabidopsis thaliana AtNRT2.1. Only the replacement of leucine 85 by glutamine disrupted the association between AtNRT2.1 and AtNAR2.1, as examined using the yeast two-hybrid system. Further, to investigate the nitrate-transporting function of AtNRT2.1 in a context free of other members of the NRT2 family, we expressed AtNRT2.1 in Aspergillus nidulans. In the fungal context the plant NRT alone was capable of restoring nitrate transport to a nitrate transport defective mutant, but only when the AtNRT2.1 central loop was replaced by its fungal counterpart.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsrael Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207