MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034332749 · doi:10.1021/np030150y

Complex <i>C</i>-Glycosyl Flavonoid Phytoalexins from <i>Cucumis </i><i>s</i><i>ativus</i>

2003· article· he· W2034332749 on OpenAlexaff
David J. McNally, Kirstin Wurms, Caroline Labbé, Stéphane Quideau, Richard R. Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Natural Products · 2003
Typearticle
Languagehe
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and Biological Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsovitexinVitexinIsoorientinOrientinLuteolinFlavonoidChemistryGlycosylApigeninPowdery mildewStereochemistryBotanyBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extraction of cucumber leaf tissue expressing induced resistance against powdery mildew fungi revealed the presence of two new major C-glycosyl flavonoid products: vitexin-6-(4-hydroxy-1-ethylbenzene) (cucumerin A, 1) and isovitexin-8-(4-hydroxy-1-ethylbenzene) (cucumerin B, 2). In addition, the known C-glycosyl flavonoids apigenin-8-C-beta-D-glucopyranoside (vitexin, 3), apigenin-6-C-beta-D-glucopyranoside (isovitexin, 4), luteolin-8-C-beta-D-glucopyranoside (orientin, 5), and luteolin-6-C-beta-D-glucopyranoside (isoorientin, 6), as well as 4-hydroxycinnamic acid (p-coumaric acid, 7) and its methyl ester (p-came, 8), were found in higher quantities within resistant plants. The structures of 1-8 were elucidated using spectroscopic methods and unambiguously confirmed for 3-8 using co-chromatography experiments with authentic standards. On the basis of the results of this study and the reported biological activities of C-glycosyl flavonoids, these compounds would play a vital role in the defense strategy of this species by acting as phytoalexins.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations114
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Natural ProductsSame topicPhytochemistry and Biological ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207