Micromorphological and Chemical Characterization of <i>Drimys winteri</i> Leaf Surfaces: The Secondary Alcohols Forming Epicuticular Wax Crystals Are Accompanied by Alkanediol, Alkanetriol and Ketol Derivatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cuticle is a hydrophobic coating of most aerial plant surfaces crucial for limiting non-stomatal water loss. Plant cuticles consist of the lipid polyester cutin and associated waxes with compositions varying widely between plant species and organs. Here, we aimed to provide a comparative analysis of the dark-glossy adaxial and pale-glaucous abaxial sides of Drimys winteri (Winteraceae) leaves. Scanning electron microscopy showed nanotubular wax crystals lining the entire abaxial side of the leaf (including stomatal pores), while the adaxial side had patches of mixed platelet/tubule crystals and smooth areas between them. Consecutive treatments for wax removal and cutin depolymerization revealed that the waxes were deposited on a cutin network with micron-scale cavities across the entire abaxial surface including the stomata pores, and on a microscopically smooth cutin surface on the adaxial side of the leaf. Gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry and flame ionization detection showed that the wax mixtures on both sides of the leaf were complex mixtures of very-long-chain compounds dominated by the secondary alcohol nonacosan-10-ol and alkanediols with one hydroxyl on C-10. It is therefore very likely that the characteristic tubular wax crystals of both leaf sides are formed by these alcohols and diols. Further secondary alcohols and alkanediols, as well as ketols and alkanetriols with one functional group on C-10, were identified based on mass spectral fragmentation patterns. The similarities between all these mid-chain-functionalized compounds suggest that they are derived from nonacosan-10-ol via regio-specific hydroxylation reactions, likely catalyzed by three P450-dependent monooxygenases with different regio-specificities.
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) | 0.001 | 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".