Nitric Oxide Is Involved in Ethylene-Induced Adventitious Rooting in Marigold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The plant hormone ethylene and the gaseous signaling molecule nitric oxide (NO) are involved in numerous plant growth and development processes. However, the mechanisms by which their interaction affects adventitious root development in plants is still not adequately studied. In this experiment, the interaction of ethylene and NO in the adventitious rooting process of marigold (Tagetes erecta L. cv. Marvel) was investigated. Treatments with different dosages of ethylene-releasing ethephon (Ethrel®, Bayer Crop Science, Leverkusen, Germany) significantly affected the formation of adventitious roots. The greatest rooting ability was observed in 10 μM ethephon-treated explants. It was further shown that the effect of ethylene could be blocked by the specific NO scavenger 2-(4-carboxyphenyl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethylimidazoline-1-oxyl-3-oxide potassium salt (cPTIO), nitric oxide synthase (NOS), enzyme inhibitor NG-nitro-l-Arg-methyl ester (l-NAME), and nitrate reductase inhibitor (NaN3). Moreover, ethephon treatments induced an increase in the endogenous NO levels and significantly improved activities of NOS and nitrate reductase (NR) during rooting. Thus, the induction of adventitious roots by ethylene may be through enhancing the levels of NO. Enzymatic pathway NOS and NR could be responsible for ethylene-induced NO production. Furthermore, ethylene and NO treatments at the appropriate dosage may increase the activities of indoleacetic acid oxidase, peroxidase, and polyphenol oxidase. Our work suggests that the stimulation of adventitious roots by ethylene relies on internal generation of NO.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".