An Arabidopsis lipid map reveals differences between tissues and dynamic changes throughout development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass spectrometry is the predominant analytical tool used in the field of plant lipidomics. However, there are many challenges associated with the mass spectrometric detection and identification of lipids because of the highly complex nature of plant lipids. Studies into lipid biosynthetic pathways, gene functions in lipid metabolism, lipid changes during plant growth and development, and the holistic examination of the role of plant lipids in environmental stress responses are often hindered. Here, we leveraged a robust pipeline that we previously established to extract and analyze lipid profiles of different tissues and developmental stages from the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. We analyzed seven tissues at several different developmental stages and identified more than 200 lipids from each tissue analyzed. The data were used to create a web-accessible in silico lipid map that has been integrated into an electronic Fluorescent Pictograph (eFP) browser. This in silico library of Arabidopsis lipids allows the visualization and exploration of the distribution and changes of lipid levels across selected developmental stages. Furthermore, it provides information on the characteristic fragments of lipids and adducts observed in the mass spectrometer and their retention times, which can be used for lipid identification. The Arabidopsis tissue lipid map can be accessed at http://bar.utoronto.ca/efp_arabidopsis_lipid/cgi-bin/efpWeb.cgi.
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".