MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Desiccation Tolerance: Avoiding Cellular Damage During Drying and Rehydration

2020· review· en· W3006423495 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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