Indaziflam herbicidal action: a potent auxin signaling inhibitor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cellulose biosynthesis is a common feature of land plants. Therefore, cellulose biosynthesis inhibitors (CBIs) are useful tools in decoding fundamental aspects of cellulose biosynthesis. Here, we characterize the herbicide indaziflam, which has a unique mode of action for resistance management and appears to prevent plant growth by inhibiting cellulose biosynthesis and causes radial swelling and ectopic lignification; typical responses to treatment with CBIs. Previous work has demonstrated that Arabidopsis thaliana mutants that are indaziflam resistant can be identified through forward genetic screening. Since indaziflam is also active in the moss Physcomitrella patens , we took advantage of this system to attempt to understand the mode of action of indaziflam. Using UV‐induced mutagenesis, we generated mutants in Physcomitrella patens that were resistant to 30μM of indaziflam ( izr ), interestingly among the izr mutants; some were cross‐resistant to synthetic auxin 2,4‐D and NAA, which is predicted that indaziflam affects multiple pathways required for plant growth and development, since auxin affects the production and remodeling of plant cell wall either directly or indirectly. The izr mutants displayed a phenotype similar to that of auxin treated wild type plants, with small, undifferentiated, and leafless filaments, so we tested their responses to exogenous auxin, and it appears mutants were insensitive to synthetic auxin and started differentiation of chloronema to caulonemal filaments and gametophore development. To positionally clone the causative mutations, we have generated segregating populations by crossing the izr mutants with the Villersexel (Vx) wild type using a protoplast fusion technique. Our screen was designed to select mutant lines with indaziflam and auxin resistance; as a result, it establishes how critical elements within the indaziflam mode of action can refine auxin repressor activity, and have the long‐term developmental outcome. As a herbicide, indaziflam could potentially be used for weed management and eliminate the effects of these invasive grasses. Support or Funding Information NSERC (The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)
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".