MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410116810 · doi:10.1021/acs.biomac.5c00271

Strong Association between Proanthocyanidins and Polysaccharides in the Cell Walls of Western Redcedar Bark

2025· article· en· W4410116810 on OpenAlexafffund
Gio Ferson M. Bautista, Oliver Musl, Michael L. A. E. Easson, Lars Kruse, Harley Gordon, Markus Bacher, Ivan Sumerskii, Aude A. Watrelot, Jörg Bohlmann, Antje Potthast, Thomas Rosenau, Orlando J. Rojas

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomacromolecules · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsProanthocyanidinBark (sound)PolysaccharideChemistryBotanyPolyphenolOrganic chemistryBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The co-occurrence of polysaccharides and proanthocyanidins in the aqueous extracts of western redcedar ( Thuja plicata Donn; WRC) bark limits their commercial utilization. To better understand their association, proanthocyanidins and polysaccharides were extracted with cold water (3.4% w/w bark) and isolated as an alcohol-insoluble residue (AIR, 1.0% w/w bark). The polysaccharide content (∼30% w/w AIR) was analyzed by acidic and enzymatic depolymerization, revealing the presence of pectins, xyloglucans, and xylans. NMR spectroscopy identified features, such as acetylation and methyl esterification. Thiolysis followed by HPLC-DAD revealed that proanthocyanidins (1.46% w/w AIR) exhibit a mean degree of polymerization of 5.3, a cis / trans ratio of 0.40, and a procyanidin/prodelphinidin ratio of 3.90. This study provides a detailed structural characterization of proanthocyanidins and polysaccharides in the AIR of WRC bark. The findings highlight their strong association, which may contribute to distinctive properties that warrant further exploration, particularly in efforts to valorize bark residues.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomacromoleculesSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207