MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158313725 · doi:10.3390/plants10050827

The Relationship between AGAMOUS and Cytokinin Signaling in the Establishment of Carpeloid Features

2021· article· en· W3158313725 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea Gómez‐Felipe, Daniel Kierzkowski, Stefan de Folter

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsAgamousCytokininBiologyTranscription factorGynoeciumMeristemCell biologyAuxinArabidopsisArabidopsis thalianaGeneGeneticsBotanyHomeotic gene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gynoecium development is dependent on gene regulation and hormonal pathway interactions. The phytohormones auxin and cytokinin are involved in many developmental programs, where cytokinin is normally important for cell division and meristem activity, while auxin induces cell differentiation and organ initiation in the shoot. The MADS-box transcription factor AGAMOUS (AG) is important for the development of the reproductive structures of the flower. Here, we focus on the relationship between AG and cytokinin in Arabidopsis thaliana, and use the weak ag-12 and the strong ag-1 allele. We found that cytokinin induces carpeloid features in an AG-dependent manner and the expression of the transcription factors CRC, SHP2, and SPT that are involved in carpel development. AG is important for gynoecium development, and contributes to regulating, or else directly regulates CRC, SHP2, and SPT. All four genes respond to either reduced or induced cytokinin signaling and have the potential to be regulated by cytokinin via the type-B ARR proteins. We generated a model of a gene regulatory network, where cytokinin signaling is mainly upstream and in parallel with AG activity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.274
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207