MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417066660 · doi:10.3791/69026

Evaluating Leaf Responses to Microbial Secondary Metabolites Using A High-Throughput Format

2025· article· en· W4417066660 on OpenAlexaff
Whynn Bosnich, Natalie Hoffmann, S. Lakshmanan, Elizabeth K. Brauer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Stress Responses and Tolerance
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCallosePeroxidasePlant cellArabidopsisMetaboliteArabidopsis thalianaSecondary metabolitePlant species

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbes secrete structurally diverse secondary metabolites during plant infection, some of which are detected by plant cells, which trigger stress responses. In this method, the induction of ion leakage, peroxidase activity, and callose production is measured in the same leaf disk sample. First, Arabidopsis or barley leaf disks are vacuum infiltrated in a 96-well plate. After 4-6 hours, conductivity is measured, followed by peroxidase activity and callose deposition at 24 hours. The flg22 peptide induces all three responses and is an affordable positive control. Surfactin and gramillin cyclic lipopeptides induce peroxidase activity and ion leakage, respectively, while the phytotoxic T-2 trichothecene suppresses peroxidase activity. Overall, this approach enables multiple comparisons across either plant genotypes or metabolite treatments. This approach can be applied to chemical genetics or bioprotection to identify stress-modulating compounds for further study. In plant genetics, this approach can be used to compare responses across plant populations for genetic mapping and to improve our understanding of plant-microbe interactions.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicPlant Stress Responses and ToleranceFrench-language works237,207