Nectary development in Cleome violacea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nectaries are a promising frontier for plant evo-devo research, and are particularly fascinating given their diversity in form, position, and secretion methods across angiosperms. Emerging model systems permit investigations of the molecular basis for nectary development and nectar secretion across a range of taxa, which addresses fundamental questions about underlying parallelisms and convergence. Herein, we explore nectary development and nectar secretion in the emerging model taxa, Cleome violacea (Cleomaceae), which exhibits a prominent adaxial nectary. First, we characterized nectary anatomy and quantified nectar secretion to establish a foundation for quantitative and functional gene experiments. Next, we leveraged RNA-seq to establish gene expression profiles of nectaries across three key stages of development: pre-anthesis, anthesis, and post-fertilization. We then performed functional studies on five genes that were putatively involved in nectary and nectar formation: CvCRABSCLAW ( CvCRC) , CvAGAMOUS ( CvAG), CvSHATTERPROOF (CvSHP), CvSWEET9 , and a highly expressed but uncharacterized transcript. These experiments revealed a high degree of functional convergence to homologues from other core Eudicots, especially Arabidopsis . CvCRC , redundantly with CvAG and CvSHP , are required for nectary initiation. Concordantly, CvSWEET9 is essential for nectar formation and secretion, which indicates that the process is eccrine based in C. violacea . While demonstration of conservation is informative to our understanding of nectary evolution, questions remain. For example, it is unknown which genes are downstream of the developmental initiators CvCRC , CvAG , and CvSHP , or what role the TCP gene family plays in nectary initiation in this family. Further to this, we have initiated a characterization of associations between nectaries, yeast, and bacteria, but more research is required beyond establishing their presence. Cleome violacea is an excellent model for continued research into nectary development because of its conspicuous nectaries, short generation time, and close taxonomic distance to Arabidopsis .
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".