MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chemical composition of the epicuticular and intracuticular wax layers on the adaxial side of <i> Ligustrum vulgare </i>leaves

2007· article· en· W2038852847 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher Buschhaus, Hubert Herz, Reinhard Jetter

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Surface Properties and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsBoulevardBotanyEpicuticular waxTropical fruitHorticultureGeographyArchaeologyWaxChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has shown that cuticular triterpenoids are exclusively found in the intracuticular wax layer of Prunus laurocerasus. To investigate whether this partitioning was species-specific, the intra- and epicuticular waxes were identified and quantified for the glossy leaves of Ligustrum vulgare, an unrelated shrub with similar wax morphology. Epicuticular wax was mechanically stripped from the adaxial leaf surface using the adhesive gum arabic. Subsequently, the organic solvent chloroform was used to extract the intracuticular wax from within the cutin matrix. The isolated waxes were quantified using gas chromatography with flame ionization detection and identified by mass spectrometry. The results were visually confirmed by scanning electron microscopy. The outer wax layer consisted entirely of homologous series of very-long-chain aliphatic compound classes. By contrast, the inner wax layer was dominated (80%) by two cyclic triterpenoids, ursolic and oleanolic acid. The accumulation of triterpenoids in the intracuticular leaf wax of a second, unrelated species suggests that this localization may be a more general phenomenon in smooth cuticles lacking epicuticular wax crystals. The mechanism and possible ecological or physiological reasons for this separation are currently being investigated.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations49
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant Surface Properties and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207