Spatio-temporal expression of phytoglobin: a determining factor in the NO specification of cell fate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant growth and development rely on the orchestration of cell proliferation, differentiation, and ultimately death. After varying rounds of divisions, cells respond to positional cues by acquiring a specific fate and embarking upon distinct developmental pathways which might differ significantly from those of adjacent cells exposed to diverse cues. Differential cell behavior is most apparent in response to stress, when some cells might be more vulnerable than others to the same stress condition. This appears to be the case for stem cells which show abnormal features of differentiation and ultimately signs of deterioration at the onset of specific types of stress such as hypoxia and water deficit. A determining factor influencing cell behavior during growth and development, and cell response during conditions of stress is nitric oxide (NO), the level of which can be regulated by phytoglobins (Pgbs), known scavengers of NO. The modulation of NO by Pgbs can be cell, tissue, and/or organ specific, as revealed by the expression patterns of Pgbs dictated by the presence of distinct cis-regulatory elements in their promoters. This review discusses how the temporal and spatial Pgb expression pattern influences NO-mediated responses and ultimately cell fate acquisition in plant developmental processes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".