Polyphenolic profiles of a variety of wild berries from the Pacific Northwest region of North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyphenols have been extensively profiled and quantified in commercially grown berries, but similar information is sparsely available for wild berries. Because polyphenolic contents are inherently associated with berries health benefits, determining phenolic profiles is an important step for strategizing potential uses by the industry and for health and nutrition outcomes. Here, we profiled phenolic compounds in wild berries commonly encountered and harvested in the Pacific Northwest region of North America. Huckleberries (Vaccinium membranaceum) of varying phenotypes were found to be comparable to related blueberries in terms of general phenolic classes composition. However, all huckleberries exhibited markedly high levels of cyanidins, and delphinidins or peonidins were also higher in specific phenotypes. Wild black elderberries (Sambucus nigra spp. Canadensis) were found to have remarkably high phenolic, especially anthocyanins, in line with reports from cultivated elderberries. Saskatoon serviceberries (Amelanchier alnifolia) were found to exhibit high polyphenol content, but with a less diverse profile dominated by quercetin. The most intriguing berry may be the Oregon grape (Mahonia Aquifolium) being the only one exhibiting more than one g of polyphenols per 100 g; as well as a remarkably even distribution of the different anthocyanin classes. All colored wild berries were found to have at minimum comparable total phenolic contents when compared to cultivated and other wild berries, suggesting they should exhibit comparable human health benefits such as antioxidant and metabolic syndrome preventative potential described for these other berries. Overall, our data represents a valuable resource to explore the potential to valorize wild berry species for their specific phenolic profiles and predicted nutritional and health properties. With repeated phenolic profiling to better understand the impact of the environment, the wild berries described here hold promises both as food ingredient applications as well as valuable complement for healthy dietary patterns.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".