MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883475953 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01152

Alleles Causing Resistance to Isoxaben and Flupoxam Highlight the Significance of Transmembrane Domains for CESA Protein Function

2018· article· en· W2883475953 on OpenAlexafffund
Isaac Shim, Robert A. Law, Zachary Kileeg, Patricia Stronghill, Julian G. B. Northey, Janice L. Strap, Dario Bonetta

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPolysaccharides and Plant Cell Walls
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArabidopsisTransmembrane domainBiologyTransmembrane proteinCelluloseMissense mutationMutantCell wallPhenotypeBiochemistryMutationGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cellulose synthase (CESA) proteins in Arabidopsis play an essential role in the production of cellulose in the cell walls. Herbicides like isoxaben and flupoxam specifically target this process and are potent cellulose biosynthesis inhibitors (CBIs). Forward genetic screens in Arabidopsis revealed that novel mutations resulting in varying degrees of resistance to either CBI can be attributed to single amino acid substitutions in primary wall CESAs. Missense mutations are almost exclusively in the predicted transmembrane regions of CESA1 and CESA3, and CESA6. Resistance to isoxaben was also conferred by modification to the catalytic residues of CESA3. This resulted in cellulose deficient phenotypes characterized by reduced crystallinity and dwarfism. However, mutations mapping to the transmembrane regions also lead to growth phenotypes and altered cellulose crystallinity phenotypes. These results provide further genetic evidence supporting the involvement of CESA transmembrane regions in cellulose biosynthesis.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Plant ScienceSame topicPolysaccharides and Plant Cell WallsFrench-language works237,207