Contribution of hydroxycinnamates and flavonoids to epidermal shielding of UV‐A and UV‐B radiation in developing rye primary leaves as assessed by ultraviolet‐induced chlorophyll fluorescence measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Epidermally located ultraviolet (UV)‐absorbing phenolic compounds, flavonoids and hydroxycinnamic acid esters (HCAs), can shield the underlying tissues in plants against harmful UV‐radiation. The relative importance of the two different classes of phenolic compounds for UV‐screening was a matter of recent debate. Using a non‐invasive method based on chlorophyll fluorescence measurements to estimate epidermal UV transmittance, the relationship between epidermal UV shielding and the content of the two different groups of secondary phenolic compounds in the epidermal layers and the underlying photosynthetic mesophyll of developing rye primary leaves grown under supplementary UV‐B radiation was investigated. From the fourth to the tenth day after sowing, epidermally located flavonoids increased in an age‐ and irradiation‐dependent manner, whereas mesophyll flavonoids and epidermal HCAs, mainly ferulic acid and p‐coumaric acid esters, were constitutively present and did not vary in their contents over the observed time period. There was an excellent correlation between epidermal UV‐A and UV‐B absorbances as assessed by chlorophyll fluorescence measurements and contents of epidermal flavonoids. However, HCAs showed an additional contribution to UV‐B shielding. In contrast, mesophyll flavonoids did not seem to play a respective role. When absorbances of the abaxial and adaxial epidermal layers were compared, it became apparent that in fully expanded primary leaves epidermal tissues from both sides were equally effective in absorption of UV‐radiation. However, the earlier and more UV‐exposed abaxial epidermis of young unrolling leaves showed a significantly higher absorption. It is shown that in early stages of development the epidermal HCAs are the dominant UV‐B protective compounds of the primary leaf. This function is increasingly replaced by the epidermal flavonoids during leaf development and acclimation. The application of chlorophyll fluorescence measurements has been proven to be a useful tool for estimating relative contents of these compounds in epidermal tissue.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".