MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017262246 · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15603-3

Transcriptional repression of GIF1 by the KIX-PPD-MYC repressor complex controls seed size in Arabidopsis

2020· article· en· W3017262246 on OpenAlexaff
Zupei Liu, Na Li, Yueying Zhang, Yunhai Li

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Genetics
FundersArizona Biomedical Research CommissionChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsArabidopsisTranscription factorBiologyRepressorTranscription (linguistics)Psychological repressionArabidopsis thalianaGeneticsCell biologyComputational biologyGene expressionGeneMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seed size is a key agronomic trait that greatly determines plant yield. Elucidating the molecular mechanism underlying seed size regulation is also an important question in developmental biology. Here, we show that the KIX-PPD-MYC-GIF1 pathway plays a crucial role in seed size control in Arabidopsis thaliana. Disruption of KIX8/9 and PPD1/2 causes large seeds due to increased cell proliferation and cell elongation in the integuments. KIX8/9 and PPD1/2 interact with transcription factors MYC3/4 to form the KIX-PPD-MYC complex in Arabidopsis. The KIX-PPD-MYC complex associates with the typical G-box sequence in the promoter of GRF-INTERACTING FACTOR 1 (GIF1), which promotes seed growth, and represses its expression. Genetic analyses support that KIX8/9, PPD1/2, MYC3/4, and GIF1 function in a common pathway to control seed size. Thus, our results reveal a genetic and molecular mechanism by which the transcription factors MYC3/4 recruit KIX8/9 and PPD1/2 to the promoter of GIF1 and repress its expression, thereby determining seed size in Arabidopsis.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations79
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207