MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396534088 · doi:10.1016/j.xplc.2024.100934

Pollen-expressed RLCKs control pollen tube burst

2024· article· en· W4396534088 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yin-Jiao Xu, Ting Luo, Peng‐Min Zhou, Weiqi Wang, Wei‐Cai Yang, Hong‐Ju Li

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaInstitute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of SciencesChinese Academy of SciencesTsinghua UniversityInstitute of GeneticsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPollenPollen tubeBotanyBiologyPollination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In angiosperms, the pollen tube enters the receptive synergid cell, where it ruptures to release its cytoplasm along with two sperm cells. This interaction is complex, and the exact signal transducers that trigger the bursting of pollen tubes are not well understood. In this study, we identify three homologous receptor-like cytoplasmic kinases (RLCKs) expressed in pollen tubes of Arabidopsis, Delayed Burst 1/2/3 (DEB1/2/3), which play a crucial role in this process. These genes produce proteins localized on the plasma membrane, and their knockout causes delayed pollen tube burst and entrance of additional pollen tubes into the embryo sac due to fertilization recovery. We show that DEBs interact with the Ca 2+ pump ACA9, influencing the dynamics of cytoplasmic Ca 2+ in pollen tubes through phosphorylation. These results highlight the importance of DEBs as key signal transducers and the critical function of the DEB–ACA9 axis in timely pollen tube burst in synergids.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant CommunicationsSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207