MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885904504 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-30635-y

Lily Pollen Tubes Pulse According to a Simple Spatial Oscillator

2018· article· en· W2885904504 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Milenka Van Hemelryck, Roberto Bernal, Yaroslav Ispolatov, Jacques Dumais

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsPollen tubePollenOscillation (cell signaling)MorphogenesisBiological systemBiologyPhysicsBiophysicsBotanyPollination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar growth is a fundamental mode of cell morphogenesis observed in nearly all major groups of organisms. Among polarly growing cells, the angiosperm pollen tubes have emerged as powerful experimental systems in large part because of their oscillatory growth, which provides a window into the network of interactions regulating morphogenesis. Empirical studies of oscillatory pollen tubes have sought to uncover the temporal sequence of cellular and molecular events that constitutes an oscillatory cycle. Here we show that in lily pollen tubes the distance or wavelength (λ = 6.3 ± 1.7 μm) over which an oscillatory cycle unfolds is more robust than the period of oscillation (τ = 39.1 ± 17.6 s) (n = 159 cells). Moreover, the oscillatory cycle is divided into slow and fast phases, with each phase unfolding over precisely one half of the wavelength. Using these observations, we show that a simple spatial bi-oscillator predicts the most common modes of oscillation observed in pollen tubes. These results call into question the traditional view of pollen tube morphogenesis as a temporal succession of cellular events. Space, not time, may be the most natural metric to inteprete the morphogenetic dynamics of these cells.

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)0.001
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 score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207