Essential roles of SERKs in the ROOT MERISTEM GROWTH FACTOR-mediated signaling pathway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ROOT MERISTEM GROWTH FACTORs (RGFs), a group of peptide hormones, play key roles in root apical meristem development. In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), there are 11 members of RGFs, in which at least RGF1, RGF2, and RGF3 are expressed at the root tip and are involved in root stem cell niche maintenance. RGFs are perceived by five functionally redundant receptor-like protein kinases, RGF1 INSENSITIVE 1 (RGI1) to RGI5, to maintain the expression of two downstream APETALA 2 (AP2) transcription factor genes, PLETHORA 1 (PLT1) and PLT2, and to stabilize PLT2. RGI1 to RGI3 were also named RGF RECEPTOR 1 (RGFR1) to RGFR3, respectively. Although previous studies have suggested that BRI1-ASSOCIATED RECEPTOR KINASE 1 (BAK1) and its paralogs, SOMATIC EMBRYOGENESIS RECEPTOR-LIKE KINASEs (SERKs), may act as coreceptors of RGIs, comprehensive genetic and biochemical analyses have not been well documented. Here, we report that single, double, and triple mutants of SERKs show various degrees of short root phenotypes and insensitivity to exogenously applied RGF1. The interaction between RGIs and BAK1 and their mutual phosphorylation are RGF1 dependent. We also found that RGF1-induced MAPK activation relies on both RGIs and SERKs. We demonstrate that RGIs play redundant roles in regulating root apical meristem development. Therefore, we genetically and biochemically substantiated that SERKs, as coreceptors, play essential roles in the RGF1-mediated signaling pathway.
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 | 0.001 | 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".