MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773667088 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.02145

Perception of Salicylic Acid in Physcomitrella patens

2017· article· en· W2773667088 on OpenAlexafffund
Yujun Peng, Tongjun Sun, Yuelin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsPhyscomitrella patensNPR1BiologyArabidopsisFunctional divergencePhenotypeMutantPlant ImmunitySalicylic acidGeneArabidopsis thalianaBotanyCell biologyGeneticsGene familyGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Salicylic acid (SA) is a key signaling molecule in plant immunity. Two types of SA receptors, NPR1 and NPR3/NPR4, were reported to be involved in the perception of SA in Arabidopsis. SA is also synthesized in the non-vascular moss Physcomitrella patens (P. patens) following pathogen infection. Sequence analysis revealed that there is only one NPR1/NPR3/NPR4-like protein in P. patens. This agrees with the phylogenetic study that showed the divergence of NPR1 and NPR3/NPR4 from the same ancestor during the evolution of higher plants. Intriguingly, expression of the P. patens NPR1/NPR3/NPR4-like gene in Arabidopsis does not complement the constitutive defense phenotype of the npr3 npr4 double mutant, but can partially rescue the mutant phenotypes of npr1-1, suggesting that it functions as an NPR1-like positive regulator of SA-mediated immunity and P. patens does not have an SA receptor functioning similarly as NPR3/NPR4. Future characterization of the P. patens NPR1-like protein and analysis of its functions through knockout and biochemical approaches will help us better understand how SA is perceived and what its functions are in P. patens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Plant ScienceSame topicPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207