The InterPro mapping supplies the original domain-based annotations. SOC1-specific promoter binding and transcription experiments independently support their MADS-box interpretation; generic DNA-binding, transcription-factor and dimerization terms are refined in the row reviews.

The PAINT-derived assertions concern inherited cis-regulatory DNA binding and RNA polymerase II transcriptional regulation. Independent SOC1 promoter occupancy and target regulation support the retained functions; this GO reference describes the inference method, not a new target experiment.

The mapping records nucleus and cytoplasm from curated UniProt localization. The underlying SOC1-AGL24 protoplast study independently supports both locations with partner-dependent nuclear accumulation.

The ARBA developmental-regulation assertion is broad; independent primary genetics supports its refinement to positive regulation of flower development. The electronic prediction itself is not independent functional evidence.

AtSubP supplies a computational nuclear-location assertion, consistent with independent SOC1 localization experiments; it is not a missing experimental publication.

Steroid-inducible CONSTANS experiments identify SOC1 and FT as early CO targets, and genetics establishes their positive contribution to CO-mediated flowering. The accessible abstract also reports regulation by a CO-independent pathway.

Activation tagging identifies AGL20/SOC1 as a dominant suppressor of FRI-associated late flowering. AGL20 overexpression suppresses late flowering, while its expression integrates vernalization, autonomous and photoperiod pathway inputs; this is positive developmental regulation rather than a structural floral-organ activity.

The genome-wide comparison provides transcription-factor family context for the original SOC1 ISS annotation. Its abstract discusses conserved DNA-binding domains across eukaryotes but does not report a SOC1-specific promoter assay; direct SOC1 evidence is supplied by other references.

Late-flowering agl20 mutants and constitutive-expression experiments establish a positive role in flowering-time control; AGL20 expression at the shoot apex integrates photoperiodic and gibberellin inputs.

The AP1/CAL yeast two-hybrid screen identifies five MADS-box partners, but the accessible abstract names only SEP3. It supplies the original interaction-screen context without independently resolving the SOC1 pair; the retained heterodimerization refinement is supported by the independent MADS interaction map and SOC1-AGL24 experiments.

The complete Arabidopsis MADS-box family analysis provides phylogenetic, domain and expression context for SOC1 classification. The abstract describes the family analysis, not a SOC1-specific biochemical assay.

The matrix yeast two-hybrid map places SOC1 among floral-induction MADS proteins that interact with floral-organ-identity proteins. These data support heterodimer capacity without establishing that every yeast pair forms an obligatory native complex.

SOC1 expression is quantitatively induced by vernalization as FLC is repressed, and also responds acutely to cold exposure. This supports the retained non-core cold-response context without implying temperature sensing.

Reciprocal promoter binding and promoter-mutagenesis experiments support a SOC1-AGL24 positive-feedback circuit at the shoot apex.

The SOC1-AGL24 regulatory interaction mediates the flowering response to gibberellins under short-day conditions; this does not make SOC1 a hormone receptor.

SOC1 directly binds LFY regulatory DNA. In transient protoplast assays AGL24 promotes SOC1 nuclear accumulation, and the authors propose the heterodimer as a mechanism of LFY activation; this localization context is retained explicitly.

Pin1At binds phosphorylated SOC1 and accelerates isomerization of its phosphorylated Ser/Thr-Pro motifs. SOC1 is the modified substrate, so this finding does not confer Pin1At catalytic activity on SOC1.

BOP1/2 and floral identity regulators repress flowering-time regulators in stage 2 floral meristems. The accessible abstract names AGL24 rather than SOC1 and does not expose the SOC1 genotype underlying the curated IGI assertion; the supported SOC1 meristem role remains non-core with that source-specific access limit.

The original source establishes the yeast two-hybrid binary-interactome method. The SOC1 annotation records AP1/FUL partners, but those exact pairs are not independently visible in the cached main text; native heterodimer stoichiometry is not inferred from the screen. Independent SOC1 MADS interaction studies support the molecular-function refinement.

SAP54 co-immunoprecipitates with SOC1 in transiently expressing Nicotiana benthamiana and destabilizes selected MADS proteins in plant assays. This supports SOC1 as an effector target, not as the enzyme executing degradation.

SOC1 promotes TFS1 transcription at floral transition and opposes Polycomb repression through recruitment of REF6 and BRM. The chromatin enzymes retain their own catalytic roles; SOC1 supplies target-directed transcriptional regulation.

OXS3 binds SOC1 in vitro and in vivo; transient AP1-promoter repression by OXS3 requires SOC1 for its full effect. This is a context-dependent regulatory interaction rather than evidence that SOC1 is invariably an activator.

The curated record summarizes SOC1 flowering-time transcriptional activation, SOC1-AGL24 heterodimer formation and partner-dependent subcellular localization.

The cached metadata identifies PTHR48019 as a MADS-box/MEF2 family. Its descriptive biological paragraph is marked llm:true and checked:false, so it is not independent experimental support; SOC1-specific functions are grounded in primary publications.

The genuine provider report supplies discovery leads for flowering mechanisms and a 2024 SOC1/AGL24 root-development study. Those leads are distinguished from independently inspected primary evidence; the root-development follow-up remains an expert question rather than a new annotation.