The Comparison between the Yellow and Pink Flowers Harvested from Hainan on the Vegetable Proteins and Metallic Elements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the yellow and pink flowers of Lantana camara L. harvested from Hainan were used as the experimental samples, two-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE) based on BPP + phenol extraction was used to separate and extract the proteins from the yellow flower and pink flowers harvested from Hainan Lantana camara L. under the optimized conditions. The gel images of the well-expressed protein were obtained, which were analyzed by using Image Master5.0 software. Then the corresponding enzymatic hydrolysis products were identified by MALDI-TOF-MS. 23 kinds of the differentially expressed proteins from the yellow flowers and 25 kinds from pink flowers of Lantana camara L . were determined by means of bioinformatics. There were 9 kinds of common proteins, 6 kinds of peculiarly expressed proteins in yellow flower and 7 kinds of peculiarly expressed proteins in pink flower, respectively. In addition, a microwave digestion inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) was performed to analyze 25 kinds of metal elements and their contents including K, Ca, Mg, Na, Al, Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn etc. The result indicated that the contents of K, Al, Mg and Fe are higher. Based on the above experimental results, it is the first time to measure the types and contents of vegetable proteins and metal elements contained in the flowers of Lantana camara L.. It is possible for further explanations on its pharmacological activity as a botanical drug from the point of proteins and metal elements, which provides a theoretical guidance for the further development and utilization of Hainan characteristic economic crops.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".