MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283704719 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2022.104683

Transcriptional reprogramming during floral fate acquisition

2022· article· en· W4283704719 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Larrieu, Géraldine Brunoud, Aurore Guérault, Stéphanie Lainé, Lauriane Hennet, Arnaud Stigliani, Iris J. Gildea, Jérémy Just, Ludivine Soubigou‐Taconnat, Sandrine Balzergue, Brendan Davies, Enrico Scarpella, Ykä Helariutta, François Parcy, Teva Vernoux

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheHuman Frontier Science Program
KeywordsAuxinMorphogenesisBiologyCell fate determinationCell biologyReprogrammingTranscription factorGene regulatory networkDevelopmental biologyCell divisionArabidopsisGeneticsCellGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coordinating growth and patterning is essential for eukaryote morphogenesis. In plants, auxin is a key regulator of morphogenesis implicated throughout development. Despite this central role, our understanding of how auxin coordinates cell fate and growth changes is still limited. Here, we addressed this question using a combination of genomic screens to delve into the transcriptional network induced by auxin at the earliest stage of flower development, prior to morphological changes. We identify a shoot-specific network suggesting that auxin initiates growth through an antagonistic regulation of growth-promoting and growth-repressive hormones, quasi-synchronously to floral fate specification. We further identify two DNA-binding One Zinc Finger (DOF) transcription factors acting in an auxin-dependent network that could interface growth and cell fate from the early stages of flower development onward.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207