Sticking to cellulose: exploiting Arabidopsis seed coat mucilage to understand cellulose biosynthesis and cell wall polysaccharide interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cell wall defines the shape of cells and ultimately plant architecture. It provides mechanical resistance to osmotic pressure while still being malleable and allowing cells to grow and divide. These properties are determined by the different components of the wall and the interactions between them. The major components of the cell wall are the polysaccharides cellulose, hemicellulose and pectin. Cellulose biosynthesis has been extensively studied in Arabidopsis hypocotyls, and more recently in the mucilage-producing epidermal cells of the seed coat. The latter has emerged as an excellent system to study cellulose biosynthesis and the interactions between cellulose and other cell wall polymers. Here we review some of the major advances in our understanding of cellulose biosynthesis in the seed coat, and how mucilage has aided our understanding of the interactions between cellulose and other cell wall components required for wall cohesion. Recently, 10 genes involved in cellulose or hemicellulose biosynthesis in mucilage have been identified. These discoveries have helped to demonstrate that xylan side-chains on rhamnogalacturonan I act to link this pectin directly to cellulose. We also examine other factors that, either directly or indirectly, influence cellulose organization or crystallization in mucilage.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".