Faculty Opinions recommendation of Spatial profiles of phosphate in roots indicate developmental control of uptake, recycling, and sequestration.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The availability of inorganic phosphate (Pi) limits plant growth and crop productivity on much of the world's arable land.To better understand how plants cope with deficient and variable supplies of this essential nutrient, we used Pi imaging to spatially resolve and quantify cytosolic Pi concentrations and the respective contributions of Pi uptake, metabolic recycling, and vacuolar sequestration to cytosolic Pi homeostasis in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) roots.Microinjection coupled with confocal microscopy was used to calibrate a FRET-based Pi sensor to determine absolute, rather than relative, Pi concentrations in live plants.High-resolution mapping of cytosolic Pi concentrations in different cells, tissues, and developmental zones of the root revealed that cytosolic concentrations varied between developmental zones, with highest levels in the transition zone, whereas concentrations were equivalent in epidermis, cortex, and endodermis within each zone.Pi concentrations in all zones were reduced, at different rates, by Pi starvation, but the developmental pattern of Pi concentration persisted.Pi uptake, metabolic recycling, and vacuolar sequestration were distinguished in each zone by using cyanide to block Pi assimilation in wild-type plants and a vacuolar Pi transport mutant, and then measuring the subsequent change in cytosolic Pi concentration over time.Each of these processes exhibited distinct spatial profiles in the root, but only vacuolar Pi sequestration corresponded with steady-state cytosolic Pi concentrations.These results highlight the complexity of Pi dynamics in live plants and revealed developmental control of root Pi homeostasis, which has potential implications for plant sensing and signaling of Pi.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.298 | 0.127 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".