MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of the cuticular wax during growth of <i>Kalanchoe daigremontiana</i> (Hamet et Perr. de la Bathie) leaves

2008· article· en· W2153613735 on OpenAlexafffund
Clare van Maarseveen, Hong Han, Reinhard Jetter

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Cell & Environment · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Surface Properties and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsWaxKalanchoeBotanyBiologyFatty acidCrassulaceaeChemistryHorticultureBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of the present study was to monitor cuticular wax accumulation during leaf development of Kalanchoe daigremontiana. Leaves expanded linearly until they were 40-60 d old. Wax coverages of leaves on the third node increased steadily during initial leaf development, from 6.5 microg x cm(-2) on day 22 to 15.3 microg x cm(-2) on day 53, and then levelled off. Triterpenoids dominated the wax mixture throughout leaf development, but decreased from 74 to 40-45% in mature leaves, while very long-chain fatty acid (VLCFA) derivatives increased from 19 to 39-44%. The major VLCFA derivatives were alkanes, accompanied by fatty acids, primary alcohols, aldehydes and alkyl esters. In all compound classes, either C(34) or C(33) homologs predominated during leaf development. Eight different triterpenoids were identified, with glutinol constituting 70% of the fraction, and friedelin (20%) and germanicol (10%) as further major components of the young leaf wax. The glutinol percentage decreased, while the relative amounts of epifriedelanol and glutanol increased during development. Various leaf pairs upwards from the third node showed similar growth patterns and developmental time courses of cuticular wax amounts and composition. Based on these surface chemical analyses, the relative activities of biosynthetic pathways leading to various wax components can be assessed.

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 score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.152
Teacher spread0.142 · 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

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Cell & EnvironmentSame topicPlant Surface Properties and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207