MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389981691 · doi:10.1093/jxb/erad504

A cucumber protein, Phloem Phosphate Stress-Repressed 1, rapidly degrades in response to a phosphate stress condition

2023· article· en· W4389981691 on OpenAlexafffund
Jieyu Chen, Byung‐Kook Ham, Leon V. Kochian, William J. Lucas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversity of CaliforniaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhloemPhosphateCucumisBiologyCell biologySieve tube elementPhosphorylationBiochemistryPiBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under depleted external phosphate (Pi), many plant species adapt to this stress by initiating downstream signaling cascades. In plants, the vascular system delivers nutrients and signaling agents to control physiological and developmental processes. Currently, limited information is available regarding the direct role of phloem-borne long-distance signals in plant growth and development under Pi stress conditions. Here, we report on the identification and characterization of a cucumber protein, Cucumis sativus Phloem Phosphate Stress-Repressed 1 (CsPPSR1), whose level in the phloem translocation stream rapidly responds to imposed Pi-limiting conditions. CsPPSR1 degradation is mediated by the 26S proteasome; under Pi-sufficient conditions, CsPPSR1 is stabilized by its phosphorylation within the sieve tube system through the action of CsPPSR1 kinase. Further, we discovered that CsPPSR1 kinase was susceptible to Pi starvation-induced degradation in the sieve tube system. Our findings offer insight into a molecular mechanism underlying the response of phloem-borne proteins to Pi-limited stress conditions.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207