MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508909523 · doi:10.1039/c6an01539e

Phytochemical profiling in single plant cell by high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry

2016· article· en· W2508909523 on OpenAlexaff
Fang Yuan, De‐Wen Zhang, Jing‐Xin Liu, Ying‐Lin Zhou, Xin‐Xiang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPhytochemicalChemistryMass spectrometryChromatographyPlant cellBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phytochemicals are essential secondary plant metabolites which play important roles in the areas of plant biochemistry, pharmacy and medical science because of their significant bioactivities. Conventional analysis of phytochemicals in plants needs a complex combination of different extraction and separation steps. Here a simple and universal method for profiling phytochemicals in a single plant cell was demonstrated based on high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Single purple and colorless cell samples (about 15 μm in size) found in the outer layer of a young stem of Forsythia suspensa, just inside the cuticles were collected and transferred by glass micropipettes from cell monolayers. At least 30 peaks were separated and detected, and 24 of these peaks were identified. Apart from several common plant metabolites in high abundance, like polysaccharides and amino acids, 9 phytochemicals that have special bioactivities in this plant and in medical treatment were successfully detected. Phytochemical differences between these two kinds of cells were also distinguished which was applied to investigate the heterogeneity of cells from different parts of plants and the dependency of important plant bioprocesses on phytochemical changes.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesisFrench-language works237,207