MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Desiccation Tolerance: Avoiding Cellular Damage During Drying and Rehydration

2020· review· en· W3006423495 on OpenAlexaff
Melvin J. Oliver, Jill M. Farrant, Henk W. M. Hilhorst, Sagadevan Mundree, Brett Williams, J. Derek Bewley

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Plant Biology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Stress Responses and Tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesiccationDesiccation toleranceBiologyRecalcitrant seedBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Desiccation of plants is often lethal but is tolerated by the majority of seeds and by vegetative tissues of only a small number of land plants. Desiccation tolerance is an ancient trait, lost from vegetative tissues following the appearance of tracheids but reappearing in several lineages when selection pressures favored its evolution. Cells of all desiccation-tolerant plants and seeds must possess a core set of mechanisms to protect them from desiccation- and rehydration-induced damage. This review explores how desiccation generates cell damage and how tolerant cells assuage the complex array of mechanical, structural, metabolic, and chemical stresses and survive.Likewise, the stress of rehydration requires appropriate mitigating cellular responses. We also explore what comparative genomics, both structural and responsive, have added to our understanding of cellular protection mechanisms induced by desiccation, and how vegetative desiccation tolerance circumvents destructive, stress-induced cell senescence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations300
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Plant BiologySame topicPlant Stress Responses and ToleranceFrench-language works237,207