Leaf secretory tissues in <i>Myrsine coriacea</i> and <i>Myrsine venosa</i> (Primulaceae): ontogeny, morphology, and chemical composition of essential oils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secretory structures are an outstanding feature in Primulaceae (Ericales). Such structures are known for their taxonomical and medicinal importance. However, a detailed morphological study of the secretory structures in Primulaceae has been neglected. Selected species for this study belong to Myrsine, a widely distributed genus in Brazil, popularly known as “capororoca”. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the ontogenesis of the secretory structures in the leaves of Myrsine coriacea (Sw.) R. Br. ex Roem & Schult. and Myrsine venosa A.DC. and report, for the first time, on the composition of their essential oils. The following secretory structures are found in M. coriacea and M. venosa: idioblasts, glandular trichomes, and secretory cavities. The development of all secretory structures, which is asynchronous, occurs during leaf expansion and differentiation; therefore, in leaf primordia, the same type of secretory structure could be observed at different stages of differentiation. By the complete expansion of leaf primordia, all secretory structures have reached their full size. Idioblasts are derived from both protodermal and ground meristem cells and they secrete mucilage or phenolic compounds. The glandular trichomes can be peltate, as found in both species, or branched, as found only in M. coriacea. Trichomes are initiated by the enlargement of protodermal cells, followed by their division, and they are completely formed by the end of leaf expansion. Secretory cavities are schizogenous and originated from ground meristem cells. Major components from M. coriacea essential oils were β-elemene, γ-muurolene, and α-cadinene, while the major components of M. venosa essential oils were β-caryophyllene, γ-muurolene, and δ-cadinene.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".