Shikimic Acid as a Marker Compound from Ludwigia alternifolia L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ludwigia alternifolia L belongs to the Onagraceae family and is distributed throughout the Northeast, Midwest and Southern US. Shikimic acid (Fig. 1 ) was first isolated in 1885 by Eijkman from the fruit of the Japanese plant Illicium religiosum Sieb [1]. The elucidation of its structure nearly 50 years later [2,3] and the discovery that shikimic acid was found to play an important role in the biosynthesis of the three aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan [4] resulted in an intensified research effort towards its synthesis [5–9], isolation from other organisms [10], identification of its metabolites [11,12] and its transformation into potential chemotherapeutics. This latter area of research has lead to the syntheses of various bioactive compounds from shikimic acid. The research outlined in this presentation is the first report for the isolation of shikimic acid from this plant. Acknowledgements: The work was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service Specific Cooperative Agreement Number 58-6408-06-067. Thanks to Mr. Frank Wiggers for NMR, Dr. Barathi Avula for HRESIMS, Dr. Vaishali C Joshi for plant identification at the National Center for Natural Products Research. References: [1] Eijkman JF, (1885) Recl Trav Chim 4: 32. [2] Fischer HOL, Dangschat G (1934) Helv Chim Acta 17: 1200. [3] Fischer HOL, Dangschat G. (1935) Helv. Chim. Acta 18: 1204. [4] Davis BDJ (1951) Biol Chem, 191: 315. [5] Campbell MM, et al. (1993) Synthesis 1. [6] Jiang S, Singh G, (1998), Tetrahedron 54: 4697. [7] Shinada T, et al. (1998) Tetrahedron Lett 39: 6027 [8] Mehta G, Mohal N (1998) Tetrahedron Lett 39: 3285 [9] Yoshida N, Ogasawara K (2000) Org. Lett 2: 1461. [10] Hattori S, Yoshida S, Hasegawa M. (1954) Physiol. Plantarum 7: 283 [11] Bohm, BA (1965) Chem. Rev 65: 435 [12] Haslam E. Shikimic Acid Metabolism and Metabolites; John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1993.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".