Phytochrome contributes to blue-light-mediated stem elongation and associated shade-avoidance response in mature <i>Arabidopsis</i> plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our recent studies on ornamental plants and microgreens indicate that blue-light-mediated stem elongation is related to phytochrome activity, which was based on the calculated phytochrome photoequilibrium. To examine whether phytochromes really contribute to the blue light’s effect, plant phenotypic responses were investigated in wild type Arabidopsis (Col-0), and its quintuple phytochrome ( phyA phyB phyC phyD phyE ) mutant plants under the following light treatments: (1) R, a pure red light from 660-nm LED; (2) B, a pure blue light from 455-nm LED; (3) BR, a impure blue light from LED combination of 94% B and 6% R; and (4) BRF, another impure blue light from LED combination of BR and 6 µmol m −2 s −1 of FR (735 nm). For all the light treatments, a photosynthetic photon flux density of ≈100 μmol m −2 s −1 were provided by 24-h lighting daily inside a walk-in growth chamber, which had an air temperature of ≈ 23 °C. The calculated phytochrome photoequilibrium was 0.89, 0.50, 0.69, and 0.60 for R, B, BR, and BRF, respectively, indicating a higher phytochrome activity under R and BR than B and BRF. After 18 days of light treatment, B or BRF increased main stem length in wild-type plants compared with R, but BR had an inhibition effect similar to R. Also, B and BRF relative to R or BR induced earlier flowering and reduced leaf size in wild type plants, showing typical shade-avoidance responses. In phytochrome-deficient mutant plants, the above shade-avoidance responses were inhibited under B or BRF, and induced under BR. However, as an exception, hypocotyl length, a growth trait during the de-etiolation stage, was reduced under B, BR and BRF vs. R regardless of phytochrome absence. It suggests that for mature Arabidopsis plants, phytochrome plays an active role in blue-light-mediated stem elongation and associated shade-avoidance response.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".