NMR analysis of lignins in CAD-deficient plants. Part 1. Incorporation of hydroxycinnamaldehydes and hydroxybenzaldehydes into lignins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peroxidase/H2O2-mediated radical coupling of 4-hydroxycinnamaldehydes produces 8-O-4-, 8-5-, and 8-8-coupled dehydrodimers as has been documented earlier, as well as the 5-5-coupled dehydrodimer. The 8-5-dehydrodimer is however produced kinetically in its cyclic phenylcoumaran form at neutral pH. Synthetic polymers produced from mixtures of hydroxycinnamaldehydes and normal monolignols provide the next level of complexity. Spectral data from dimers, oligomers, and synthetic polymers have allowed a more substantive assignment of aldehyde components in lignins isolated from a CAD-deficient pine mutant and an antisense-CAD-downregulated transgenic tobacco. CAD-deficient pine lignin shows enhanced levels of the typical benzaldehyde and cinnamaldehyde end-groups, along with evidence for two types of 8-O-4-coupled coniferaldehyde units. The CAD-downregulated tobacco also has higher levels of hydroxycinnamaldehyde and hydroxybenzaldehyde (mainly syringaldehyde) incorporation, but the analogous two types of 8-O-4-coupled products are the dominant features. 8-8-Coupled units are also clearly evident. There is clear evidence for coupling of hydroxycinnamaldehydes to each other and then incorporation into the lignin, as well as for the incorporation of hydroxycinnamaldehyde monomers into the growing lignin polymer. Coniferaldehyde and sinapaldehyde (as well as vanillin and syringaldehyde) co-polymerize with the traditional monolignols into lignins and do so at enhanced levels when CAD-deficiency has an impact on the normal monolignol production. The implication is that, particularly in angiosperms, the aldehydes behave like the traditional monolignols and should probably be regarded as authentic lignin monomers in normal and CAD-deficient plants.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".