Complex reproductive secretions occur in all extant gymnosperm lineages: a proteomic survey of gymnosperm pollination drops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
KEY MESSAGE: Complex protein-containing reproductive secretions are a conserved trait amongst all extant gymnosperms; the pollination drops of most groups include carbohydrate-modifying enzymes and defence proteins. Pollination drops are aqueous secretions that receive pollen and transport it to the ovule interior in gymnosperms (Coniferales, Cycadales, Ginkgoales, Gnetales). Proteins are well established as components of pollination drops in conifers (Coniferales) and Ephedra spp. (Gnetales), but it is unknown whether proteins are also present in the pollination drops of cycads (Cycadales), Ginkgo (Ginkgoales), Gnetum (Gnetales), or in the pollination drops produced by sterile ovules occurring on pollen plants in the Gnetales. We used liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry followed by database-derived protein identification to conduct proteomic surveys of pollination drops collected from: Ceratozamia hildae, Zamia furfuracea and Cycas rumphii (Cycadales); Ginkgo biloba (Ginkgoales); Gnetum gnemon and Welwitschia mirabilis, including pollination drops from both microsporangiate and ovulate plants (Gnetales). We identified proteins in all samples: C. hildae (61), Z. furfuracea (40), C. rumphii (9), G. biloba (57), G. gnemon ovulate (17) and sterile ovules from microsporangiate plants (25) and W. mirabilis fertile ovules (1) and sterile ovules from microsporangiate plants (138). Proteins involved in defence and carbohydrate modification occurred in the drops of most groups, indicating conserved functions for proteins in pollination drops. Our study demonstrates that all extant gymnosperm groups produce complex reproductive secretions containing proteins, an ancient trait that likely contributed to the evolutionary success of seed plants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".