MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245102433 · doi:10.1093/jxb/52.354.105

Endo‐β‐mannanase is present in an inactive form in ripening tomato fruits of the cultivar Walter

2001· article· en· W4245102433 on OpenAlexafffund
Mitali Banik, Richard Bourgault, J. Derek Bewley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsRipeningCultivarEnzymeHorticultureEnzyme assayBotanyBiologyChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fruits of the tomato cultivar Walter undergo normal development to the red‐ripe stage but, unlike those of the cultivar Trust, they do not produce any active endo‐β‐mannanase. Reasons for this failure to produce the enzyme were sought. The cv. Walter contains genes for endo‐β‐mannanase, as shown by Southern blot analysis, and transcripts for the enzyme are present in ripening fruits, as revealed using Northern hybridization. Moreover, the enzyme protein is detectable by Western blots using an endo‐β‐mannanase‐specific antibody from tomato. In addition, the inactive enzyme is localized appropriately in the wall regions of the outer layers of the fruit (skin and outer pericarp). Mixing inactive fruit extracts of cv. Walter, in excess, with extracts from cv. Trust fruits, which contain active enzyme, leads to an increase rather than a reduction in enzyme activity, showing that there are no inhibitors of endo‐β‐mannanase in cv. Walter fruits. Similar results were obtained with fruits of the tomato cv. Heinz 1439. In contrast to the situation in fruits, the seeds of both cvs Walter and Heinz 1439 produce active enzyme, especially following germination.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207