MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390542559 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2023.1322728

Multifaceted roles of transcription factors during plant embryogenesis

2024· article· en· W4390542559 on OpenAlexaff
Hai Ying Yuan, Sateesh Kagale, A. M. R. Ferrie

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaSaskatchewan Research Council (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomeoboxTranscription factorLeafyBiologyAgamousArabidopsisEmbryogenesisCotyledonCell biologyGeneticsGeneBotanyHomeotic geneMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcription factors (TFs) are diverse groups of regulatory proteins. Through their specific binding domains, TFs bind to their target genes and regulate their expression, therefore TFs play important roles in various growth and developmental processes. Plant embryogenesis is a highly regulated and intricate process during which embryos arise from various sources and undergo development; it can be further divided into zygotic embryogenesis (ZE) and somatic embryogenesis (SE). TFs play a crucial role in the process of plant embryogenesis with a number of them acting as master regulators in both ZE and SE. In this review, we focus on the master TFs involved in embryogenesis such as BABY BOOM (BBM) from the APETALA2 / Ethylene-Responsive Factor (AP2/ERF) family, WUSCHEL and WUSCHEL-related homeobox (WOX) from the homeobox family, LEAFY COTYLEDON 2 (LEC2) from the B3 family, AGAMOUS-Like 15 (AGL15) from the MADS family and LEAFY COTYLEDON 1 (LEC1) from the Nuclear Factor Y (NF-Y) family. We aim to present the recent progress pertaining to the diverse roles these master TFs play in both ZE and SE in Arabidopsis, as well as other plant species including crops. We also discuss future perspectives in this context.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations45
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207