Caffeic Acid Derivatives Production by Hairy Root Cultures of <i>Echinacea purpurea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inoculation of leaf explants of Echinacea purpurea (Moench) with Agrobacterium rhizogenes induced hairy roots with the capacity to produce biologically active caffeic acid derivatives (CADs), especially cichoric acid. The kinetics of growth, the uptake of macronutrients, and the accumulation of CADs were investigated in heterotrophically cultured hairy roots for a 50 day period. A maximum of 12.2 g L(-1) dry biomass was achieved in MS nutrients supplemented with 30 g L(-1) sucrose on day 40. The mathematical relationship between hairy root growth and conductivity was established during the exponential phase in Erlenmeyer flasks. HPLC analyses of methanolic (0.1% phosphoric acid; 70:30, v/v) extracts from hairy roots revealed the presence of important CADs: cichoric acid (19.21 mg g(-1) dry biomass), caftaric acid (3.56 mg g(-1) dry biomass), and chlorogenic acid (0.93 mg g(-1) dry biomass). These results demonstrate that biotechnological production of CADs in hairy roots of E. purpurea is possible. Furthermore, these hairy root cultures offer, for the very first time, an excellent biological model to study the biosynthetic pathway of medicinally important CADs.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".