Different proportions of cadmium occur as Cd‐binding phytochelatin complexes in plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to determine cadmium (Cd) speciation in various plants, between buffer-soluble and acid-soluble Cd, and also within the buffer-soluble Cd. A better understanding of Cd speciation shows the relative importance of different biological mechanisms for Cd sequestration. Roots of Pistia stratiodes, Eichhornia crassipes, Agrostis gigantea, Deschampsia caespitosa and wheat Triticum turgidum var. durum were analyzed. Buffer extractions solubilized varying proportions of Cd, ranging from 12% in Eichhornia to 83% in Agrostis. The proportion increased with time of Cd exposure in Pistia. It also increased in wheat roots as the external Cd rose from 0.05 to 0.5 muM and was lowest in old leaves and highest in roots. The remaining Cd was extractable with acid. Gel filtration resolved buffer-soluble Cd into three peaks distinct from inorganic Cd. Two complexes with phytochelatins and related polythiols were present in all cases, inorganic Cd being prominent only in Eichhornia extracts. The phytochelatin complexes accounted for 2% of the root Cd in Eichhornia to 78% in Agrostis. In wheat, phytochelatins bound 82% of the Cd in roots, 19% in young leaves and 12% in old leaves. The cysteine-rich protein metallothionein from wheat was detected immunologically in the void volume of gel filtrations of old and young leaves, but not of roots, and was distinct from the two phytochelatin-based complexes. Speciation of Cd in the various plants indicated that phytochelatins were not necessarily the major ligands of Cd.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".