Leaflet initiation and blade expansion are separable in compound leaf development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compound leaves are composed of multiple separate blade units termed leaflets. In tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) compound leaves, auxin promotes both leaflet initiation and blade expansion. However, it is unclear how these two developmental processes interact. With highly variable complexity, tomato compound leaves provide an ideal system to address this question. In this study, we obtained and analyzed mutants of the WUSCHEL-RELATED HOMEOBOX (WOX) family gene SlLAM1 from tomato, whose orthologs in tobacco (Nicotiana sylvestris) and other species are indispensable for blade expansion. We show that SlLAM1 is expressed in the middle and marginal domains of leaves, and is required for blade expansion in leaflets. We demonstrate that sllam1 mutants cause a delay of leaflet initiation and slightly alter the arrangement of first-order leaflets, whereas the overall leaflet number is comparable to that of wild-type leaves. Analysis of the genetic interactions between SlLAM1 and key auxin signaling components revealed an epistatic effect of SlLAM1 in determining the final leaf form. Finally, we show that SlLAM1 is also required for floral organ growth and affects the fertility of gametophytes. Our data suggest that SlLAM1 promotes blade expansion in multiple leaf types, and leaflet initiation can be largely uncoupled from blade expansion during compound leaf morphogenesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".