MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165182055 · doi:10.1093/jxb/erq366

Composition differences between epicuticular and intracuticular wax substructures: How do plants seal their epidermal surfaces?

2010· review· en· W2165182055 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Buschhaus, Reinhard Jetter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Surface Properties and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaxEpicuticular waxCutinCuticle (hair)BotanyFractionationPlant cuticleChemistryChromatographyBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The protective wax coating on plant surfaces has long been considered to be non-uniform in composition at a subcellular scale. In recent years, direct evidence has started to accumulate showing quantitative compositional differences between the epicuticular wax (i.e. wax exterior to cutin that can be mechanically peeled off) and intracuticular wax (i.e. wax residing within the mechanically resistant layer of cutin) layers in particular. This review provides a first synthesis of the results acquired for all the species investigated to date in order to assign chemical information directly to cuticle substructures, together with an overview of the methods used and a discussion of possible mechanisms and biological functions. The development of methods to probe the wax for z-direction heterogeneity began with differential solvent extractions. Further research employing mechanical wax removal by adhesives permitted the separation and analysis of the epicuticular and intracuticular wax. In wild-type plants, the intracuticular (1-30 μg cm(-2)) plus the epicuticular wax (5-30 μg cm(-2)) combined to a total of 8-40 μg cm(-2). Cyclic wax constituents, such as triterpenoids and alkylresorcinols, preferentially or entirely accumulate within the intracuticular layer. Within the very-long-chain aliphatic wax components, primary alcohols tend to accumulate to higher percentages in the intracuticular wax layer, while free fatty acids and alkanes in many cases accumulate in the epicuticular layer. Compounds with different chain lengths are typically distributed evenly between the layers. The mechanism causing the fractionation remains to be elucidated but it seems plausible that it involves, at least in part, spontaneous partitioning due to the physico-chemical properties of the wax compounds and interactions with the intracuticular polymers. The arrangement of compounds probably directly influences cuticular functions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations308
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicPlant Surface Properties and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207