MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759420241 · doi:10.1093/jxb/erx340

Exocyst, exosomes, and autophagy in the regulation of Brassicaceae pollen-stigma interactions

2017· review· en· W2759420241 on OpenAlexafffund
Daphne R. Goring

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPollenPollen tubeBiologyArabidopsisCell biologyBotanyBrassicaceaeCalloseMicrovesiclesSecretionContext (archaeology)Cell wallPollinationMutantBiochemistrymicroRNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brassicaceae pollen-stigma interactions have been extensively studied in Brassica and Arabidopsis species to identify cellular events triggered in the stigmatic papillae by pollen contact. Compatible pollinations are linked to the activation of basal cellular responses in the stigmatic papillae, which include calcium gradients, actin networks, and polarized secretion. The occurrence of these cellular events in stigmatic papillae coincides with the stages of pollen hydration and pollen tube entry into the stigmatic papillar cell wall. However, the form of the vesicle trafficking appears to differ between species, with vesicle-like structures detected in Arabidopsis species while exosomes were found to be secreted in Brassica species. Around the same timeframe, self-incompatible pollen recognition leads altered cellular responses in the stigmatic papillae to interfere with basal compatible pollen responses and disrupt regulated secretion, causing self-pollen rejection. Here, the literature on the changing cellular dynamics in the stigmatic papillae following pollination is reviewed and discussed in the context of other well-characterized examples of polarized secretion in plants.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207