Duplicated antagonistic EPF peptides optimize grass stomatal initiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peptide signaling has emerged as a key component of plant growth and development, including stomatal patterning, which is crucial for plant productivity and survival. Although exciting progress has been made in understanding EPIDERMAL PATTERNING FACTOR (EPF) signaling in Arabidopsis, the mechanisms by which EPF peptides control different stomatal patterns and morphologies in grasses are poorly understood. Here, by examining expression patterns, overexpression transgenics and cross-species complementation, the antagonistic stomatal ligands orthologous to Arabidopsis AtEPF2 and AtSTOMAGEN/AtEPFL9 peptides were identified in Triticum aestivum (wheat) and the grass model organism Brachypodium distachyon. Application of bioactive BdEPF2 peptides inhibited stomatal initiation, but not the progression or differentiation of stomatal precursors in Brachypodium. Additionally, the inhibitory roles of these EPF peptides during grass stomatal development were suppressed by the contrasting positive action of the BdSTOMAGEN peptide in a dose-dependent manner. These results not only demonstrate how conserved EPF peptides that control different stomatal patterns exist in nature, but also suggest new strategies to improve crop yield through the use of plant-derived antagonistic peptides that optimize stomatal density on the plant epidermis.
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".