MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949785438 · doi:10.1021/jo049648a

Phytoalexins from the Crucifer Rutabaga:  Structures, Syntheses, Biosyntheses, and Antifungal Activity

2004· article· en· W2949785438 on OpenAlexaff
M. Soledade C. Pedras, Sabine Montaut, Mojmı́r Suchý

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Organic Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytoalexinCruciferTryptamineBrassicaAntifungalChemistryStereochemistryBotanyBiologyBiochemistryMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phytoalexins are inducible chemical defenses produced de novo by plants in response to diverse forms of stress, including microbial attack. Our search for phytoalexins from economically important crucifers lead us to examine rutabaga tubers (Brassica napus L. ssp. rapifera). Three new phytoalexins, named isalexin (9), brassicanate A (10), and rutalexin (11), were isolated together with five known phytoalexins, brassinin (4), 1-methoxybrassinin (5), spirobrassinin (13), brassicanal A (14), and brassilexin (15). The chemical structures of the new phytoalexins were proven by syntheses, and their biological activity against four plant pathogens were determined. Biosynthetic studies using tetra- and pentadeuterated precursors established that indolyl-3-acetaldoxime (22) and brassinin (4) are precursors of brassicanate A (10) and rutalexin (11) and that cyclobrassinin (23) is a biosynthetic precursor of rutalexin (11), whereas tryptamine (24) is not a precursor of rutabaga phytoalexins.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations69
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Organic ChemistrySame topicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stressFrench-language works237,207