Defining the Diverse Cell Populations Contributing to Lignification in Arabidopsis Stems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many land plants evolved tall and sturdy growth habits due to specialized cells with thick lignified cell walls: tracheary elements that function in water transport and fibers that function in structural support. The objective of this study was to define how and when diverse cell populations contribute lignin precursors, monolignols, to secondary cell walls during lignification of the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) inflorescence stem. Previous work demonstrated that, when lignin biosynthesis is suppressed in fiber and tracheary element cells with thickened walls, fibers become lignin-depleted while vascular bundles still lignify, suggesting that nonlignifying neighboring xylem cells are contributing to lignification. In this work, we dissect the contributions of different cell types, specifically xylary parenchyma and fiber cells, to lignification of the stem using cell-type-specific promoters to either knock down an essential monolignol biosynthetic gene or to introduce novel monolignol conjugates. Analysis of either reductions in lignin in knockdown lines, or the addition of novel monolignol conjugates, directly identifies the xylary parenchyma and fiber cell populations that contribute to the stem lignification and the developmental timing at which each contribution is most important.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".