Structural compositions and biological activities of cell wall polysaccharides in the rhizome, stem, and leaf of Polygonatum odoratum (Mill.) Druce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polygonatum odoratum is a perennial rhizomatous medicinal plant and different plant parts have been used in the treatment of various ailments. Herein, we have investigated the structural compositions of rhizome, leaf, and stem cell walls. We found 30–44% of polysaccharides in these wall preparations were cyclohexanediaminetetraacetic acid (CDTA) extractable, the proportion of heteromannans (HMs) in the rhizome is nearly three-fold compared to that of the leave and stem. The pectic polysaccharides of the rhizome are also structurally more diverse, with arabinans and type I and type II arabinogalactans being richest as shown by linkage study of the sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) extract. In addition, the 2-linked Araf was rhizome-specific, suggesting the cell walls in the rhizome had adapted to a more complex structure compared to that of the leaf and stem. Water-soluble polysaccharide fractions were also investigated, high proportion of Man as in 4-linked Manp indicated high proportion of HMs. The 21.4 kDa pectic polysaccharides and HMs derived from rhizome cell walls induced specific immune response in mice macrophage cells producing IL-1α and hematopoietic growth factors GM-CSF and G-CSF in vitro.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".