MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029605420 · doi:10.1242/dev.187666

Vein patterning by tissue-specific auxin transport

2020· article· en· W3029605420 on OpenAlexafffund
Priyanka Govindaraju, Carla Verna, Tongbo Zhu, Enrico Scarpella

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAuxinBiologyEpidermis (zoology)Cell biologyPIN1Plant hormoneAnatomyBotanyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlike in animals, in plants, vein patterning does not rely on direct cell-cell interaction and cell migration; instead, it depends on the transport of the plant hormone auxin, which in turn depends on the activity of the PIN-FORMED1 (PIN1) auxin transporter. The current hypotheses of vein patterning by auxin transport propose that, in the epidermis of the developing leaf, PIN1-mediated auxin transport converges to peaks of auxin level. From those convergence points of epidermal PIN1 polarity, auxin would be transported in the inner tissues where it would give rise to major veins. Here, we have tested predictions of this hypothesis and have found them unsupported: epidermal PIN1 expression is neither required nor sufficient for auxin transport-dependent vein patterning, whereas inner-tissue PIN1 expression turns out to be both required and sufficient for auxin transport-dependent vein patterning. Our results refute all vein patterning hypotheses based on auxin transport from the epidermis and suggest alternatives for future tests.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207