The isoprene‐responsive phosphoproteome provides new insights into the putative signalling pathways and novel roles of isoprene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many plants, especially trees, emit isoprene in a highly light- and temperature-dependent manner. The advantages for plants that emit, if any, have been difficult to determine. Direct effects on membranes have been disproven. New insights have been obtained by RNA sequencing, proteomic and metabolomic studies. We determined the responses of the phosphoproteome to exposure of Arabidopsis leaves to isoprene in the gas phase for either 1 or 5 h. Isoprene effects that were not apparent from RNA sequencing and other methods but were apparent in the phosphoproteome include effects on chloroplast movement proteins and membrane remodelling proteins. Several receptor kinases were found to have altered phosphorylation levels. To test whether potential isoprene receptors could be identified, we used molecular dynamics simulations to test for proteins that might have strong binding to isoprene and, therefore might act as receptors. Although many Arabidopsis proteins were found to have slightly higher binding affinities than a reference set of Homo sapiens proteins, no specific receptor kinase was found to have a very high binding affinity. The changes in chloroplast movement, photosynthesis capacity and so forth, found in this work, are consistent with isoprene responses being especially useful in the upper canopy of trees.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".