An open source plant kinase chemogenomics set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 129 protein kinases, selected to represent the diversity of the rice ( Oryza sativa ) kinome, were cloned and tested for expression in E. coli . 40 of these rice kinases were purified and screened using differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF) against 627 diverse kinase inhibitors, with a range of structures and activities targeting diverse human kinases. 37 active compounds were then tested for their ability to modify primary root development in Arabidopsis. Of these, 14 compounds caused a significant reduction of primary root length and two slightly increased root elongation compared with control plants. Two inhibitory compounds bind to the predicted orthologue of Arabidopsis PSKR1, one of two receptors for PSK, a small sulfated peptide that positively controls root development. Inhibition could not be rescued by the exogenous addition of the PSK peptide, suggesting that chemical treatment may inhibit both PSKR1 and its closely related receptor PSKR2. Of the compounds acting as root growth inhibitors in Arabidopsis, six conferred the same effect in rice. Compound RAF265 (CHIR-265), previously shown to bind the human kinase BRAF (B-Raf proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase), also binds to nine highly conserved rice kinases tested. The binding of human and rice kinases to the same compound suggests that human kinase inhibitor sets will be useful for dissecting the function of plant kinases.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.054 |
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".