Primary wall cellulose synthase regulates shoot apical meristem mechanics and growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How organisms attain their specific shapes and modify their growth patterns in response to environmental and chemical signals has been the subject of many investigations. Plant cells are at high turgor pressure, and are surrounded by a rigid yet flexible cell wall, which is the primary determinant of plant growth and morphogenesis. Cellulose microfibrils, synthesized by plasma membrane-localized cellulose synthase complexes, are major tension-bearing components of the cell wall that mediate directional growth. Despite advances in understanding genetic and biophysical regulation of morphogenesis, direct studies on cellulose biosynthesis and its impact on morphogenesis of different cell and tissue types are largely lacking. In this study, we take advantage of mutants of three primary cellulose synthase (CESA) genes that are involved in primary wall cellulose synthesis. Using field emission scanning electron microscopy, live cell imaging and biophysical measurements, we aimed to understand how the primary wall CESA complex acts during shoot apical meristem development. Our results indicate that cellulose biosynthesis impacts the mechanics and growth of the shoot apical meristem.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".