Presence of monoterpene synthase in four Labiatae species and Solid-Phase Microextraction- Gas chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy analysis of their aroma profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The family Lamiaceae (Labiatae) has included some medicinal plants. some monoterpene synthases, including linalool and limonene synthases, have been cloned and functionally characterized from several plants of Labiatae family. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, presence of linalool and limonene synthases, in four species of Labiatae family including Nepeta cataria, Lavandula angustifolia, Hyssopus officinalis and Salvia sclarea has been determined by molecular biological techniques together with the Head space SPME - GC-MS analysis of the aroma profile of these species. RESULTS: Indicated that none of the plant species produced distinguishable bands with primer pairs related to d-limonene synthase. Distinguishable bands around 1800 bp in cDNA samples of L. angustifolia, H. officinalis and S. sclarea were observed regarding to the presence of linalool synthase. Head space SPME-GC-MS analysis of the aroma profiles of the above-mentioned plants showed that linalool (31.0%), linalyl acetate (18.2%), were found as the major compounds of L. angustifolia, while geraniol (5.5%), nerol (34.0%) and α- citral (52.0%) were identified as the main compounds of the N. cataria. The major components of H. officinalis and S. sclarea oils were determined as cis-pinocamphone (57.3%), and linalool (19.0%), linalyl acetate (51.5%), respectively. CONCLUSION: H. officinalis was rich of cyclic monoterpenes, L. angustifolia, N. cataria and S. sclarea showed considerable amount of linear monoterpenes. The aroma profile of the above-mentioned plants contained low concentration of sesquiterpenes except N. cataria, which indicated no sesquiterpene. The profiles of the main components of these plants are in agreement with molecular assays.
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 | 0.001 | 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".