MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895871623 · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2018.10.001

Lignin polymerization: how do plants manage the chemistry so well?

2018· review· en· W2895871623 on OpenAlexaff
Yuki Tobimatsu, Mathias Schuetz

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Biotechnology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Gene Expression Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonolignolLigninPolymerizationLaccaseChemistryCell wallPeroxidasePolymerApoplastSecondary cell wallBiochemistryOrganic chemistryBiosynthesisEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The final step of lignin biosynthesis is the polymerization of monolignols in apoplastic cell wall domains. In this process, monolignols secreted by lignifying cells, or occasionally neighboring non-lignifying and/or other lignifying cells, are activated by cell-wall-localized oxidation systems, such as laccase/O 2 and/or peroxidase/H 2 O 2 , for combinatorial radical coupling to make the final lignin polymers. Plants can precisely control when, where, and which types of lignin polymers are assembled at tissue and cellular levels, but do not control the polymers’ exact chemical structures per se . Recent studies have begun to identify specific laccase and peroxidase proteins responsible for lignin polymerization in specific cell types and during different developmental stages. The coordination of polymerization machinery localization and monolignol supply is likely critical for the spatio-temporal patterning of lignin polymerization. Further advancement in this research area will continue to increase our capacity to manipulate lignin content/structure in biomass to meet our own biotechnological purposes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations319
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in BiotechnologySame topicPlant Gene Expression AnalysisFrench-language works237,207