Signaling interactions between mitochondria and chloroplasts in <i>Nicotiana tabacum</i> leaf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has begun to elucidate the signal transduction pathway(s) that control cellular responses to changes in mitochondrial status. Important tools in such studies are chemical inhibitors used to initiate mitochondrial dysfunction. This study compares the effect of different inhibitors and treatment conditions on the transcript amount of nuclear genes specifically responsive to mitochondrial dysfunction in leaf of Nicotiana tabacum L. cv. Petit Havana. The Complex III inhibitors antimycin A (AA) and myxothiazol (MYXO), and the Complex V inhibitor oligomycin (OLIGO), each increased the transcript amount of the mitochondrial dysfunction genes. Transcript responses to OLIGO were greater during treatment in the dark than in the light, and the dark treatment resulted in cell death. In the dark, transcript responses to AA and MYXO were similar to one another, despite MYXO leading to cell death. In the light, transcript responses to AA and MYXO diverged, despite cell viability remaining high with either inhibitor. This divergent response may be due to differential signaling from the chloroplast because only AA also inhibited cyclic electron transport, resulting in a strong acceptor-side limitation in photosystem I. In the light, chemical inhibition of chloroplast electron transport reduced transcript responses to AA, while having no effect on the response to MYXO, and increasing the response to OLIGO. Hence, when studying mitochondrial dysfunction signaling, different inhibitor and treatment combinations differentially affect linked processes (e.g. chloroplast function and cell fate) that then contribute to measured responses. Therefore, inhibitor and treatment conditions should be chosen to align with specific study goals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".