Distribution of Leaf Flavonoid Aglycones and Glucuronides in the Genus Phaseolus and Related Genera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ninety-six species and hybrids of the genus Phaseolus and related genera, Dysolobium, Macroptilium, Strophostyles, and Vigna are surveyed for their leaf flavonoid (flavone/flavonol) aglycone and glucuronide distribution patterns. The aim is to determine whether the distribution patterns of certain flavonoid aglycones and/or glucuronides are restricted in each genus and hence, could be used to delineate the genus. The results show that flavonol aglycones (kaempferol and quercetin) are more frequent in the entire group than the flavones (luteolin and apigenin). Kaempferol is more prevalent than quercetin in the genus Macroptilium, while Strophostyles accumulates mainly quercetin. There is generally no restricted pattern for a particular type of flavonoid aglycone in Phaseolus and Vigna genera. Results also show the presence of flavonoid glucuronides in six out of 18 species of Phaseolus surveyed, but are absent in all the species of Vigna, Macroptilium, and Strophostyles. The situation in Dysolobium is inconclusive. A flavonoid band moved toward the anode during electrophoresis (a positive test for the presence of glucuronide) but glucuronic acid was not detected during subsequent analysis. In the genus Phaseolus, all the species and cultivars that accumulate flavones such as P. coccineus, P. ricciardianus and P. parviflorus accumulate flavone glucuronides, while P. vulgaris, P. tuberosus and P. zebra accumulate flavonol glucuronides.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".