The Relationship Between the Colors and Anthocyanins of Clematis Hybridas with Double Petals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to find out the relationship be tween the colors and anthocyanins of clematis hybridas ( Clematis florida Thunb. ) with double petals, 6 major anthocyanins in clematis hybridas with double petals of 4 color systems were quantitatively analyzed by HPLC-MS. The results showed that anthocyanins were detected in all clematis hybridas, but the monomer content and total amount of anthocyanins were significantly different, and the dominant anthocyanin monomer in different color systems were different. The contents of peonidin and cyanidin in red clematis hybridas were significantly higher than those in purple and blue clematis hybridas, up to 30.7 and 13.0 times, indicating that peonidin and cyanidin might be related to red coloring. The content of delphinidin in purple clematis hybridas was higher than that in red clematis hybridas, but lower than that in blue clematis hybridas, and the content of delphinidin in blue clematis hybridas was the highest, indicating that delphinidin content might affect the change of flower color from purple to blue. Only a little cyanidin was detected in white clematis hybridas, but no other five anthocyanins were detected, indicating that the pure white clematis hybridas should be free of anthocyanins, and the little cyanidin detected might be related to the reddish color at the end of the calyx petals of the test material. In addition, the total amount of 6 anthocyanins in red clematis hybridas was much higher than that in other color systems, indicating that the different colors of calyx petals was closely related to the total amount of anthocyanins. The implementation of this study has laid a foundation for exploring the coloration mechanism in calyx petals of clematis hybridas, and also provided a theoretical basis for the breeding of flower color of clematis hybridas.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".