Communication in Plants: Comparison of Multiple Action Potential and Mechanosensitive Signals With Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both action potentials and mechanosensitive signalling are an important communication mechanisms in plants. Considering an information-theoretic framework, this paper explores the effective range of multiple action potentials for a long chain of cells (i.e., up to 100) in different configurations, and introduces the study of multiple mechanosensitive activation signals (generated due to a mechanical stimulus) in plants. For both these signals, we find that the mutual information per cell and information propagation speed tends to increase up to a certain number of receiver cells. However, as the number of cells increase beyond 10 to 12, the mutual information per cell starts to decrease. To validate our model and results, we include an experimental verification of the theoretical model, using a PhytlSigns biosignal amplifier, allowing us to measure the magnitude of the voltage associated with the multiple AP's and mechanosensitive activation signals induced by different stimulus in plants. Experimental data is used to calculate the mutual information and information propagation speed, which is compared with corresponding numerical results. Since these signals are used for a variety of important tasks within the plant, understanding them may lead to new bioengineering methods for 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".