MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594459135 · doi:10.1111/nph.14449

A common developmental program can produce diverse leaf shapes

2017· article· en· W2594459135 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam Runions, Miltos Tsiantis, Przemysław Prusinkiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCluster of Excellence on Plant SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMax-Planck-GesellschaftUniversity of QueenslandHuman Frontier Science Program
KeywordsBiologyArabidopsis thalianaBotanyDevelopmental geneticsMorphology (biology)Evolutionary biologyGeneticsGeneRegulation of gene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eudicot leaves have astoundingly diverse shapes. The central problem addressed in this paper is the developmental origin of this diversity. To investigate this problem, we propose a computational model of leaf development that generalizes the largely conserved molecular program for the reference plants Arabidopsis thaliana, Cardamine hirsuta and Solanum lycopersicum. The model characterizes leaf development as a product of three interwoven processes: the patterning of serrations, lobes and/or leaflets on the leaf margin; the patterning of the vascular system; and the growth of the leaf blade spanning the main veins. The veins play a significant morphogenetic role as a local determinant of growth directions. We show that small variations of this model can produce diverse leaf shapes, from simple to lobed to compound. It is thus plausible that diverse shapes of eudicot leaves result from small variations of a common developmental program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations153
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207