| Title |
Immunohistochemical localization of caffeine in young Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze (tea) leaves
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Planta, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00425-012-1804-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shane V. van Breda, Chris F. van der Merwe, Hannes Robbertse, Zeno Apostolides |
| Abstract |
The anatomical localization of caffeine within young Camellia sinensis leaves was investigated using immunohistochemical methods and confocal scanning laser microscopy. Preliminary fixation experiments were conducted with young C. sinensis leaves to determine which fixation procedure retained caffeine the best as determined by high-performance liquid chromatography analysis. High pressure freezing, freeze substitution, and embedding in resin was deemed the best protocol as it retained most of the caffeine and allowed for the samples to be sectioned with ease. Immunohistochemical localization with primary anti-caffeine antibodies and conjugated secondary antibodies on leaf sections proved at the tissue level that caffeine was localized and accumulated within vascular bundles, mainly the precursor phloem. With the use of a pressure bomb, xylem sap was collected using a micro syringe. The xylem sap was analyzed by thin-layer chromatography and the presence of caffeine was determined. We hypothesize that caffeine is synthesized in the chloroplasts of photosynthetic cells and transported to vascular bundles where it acts as a chemical defense against various pathogens and predators. Complex formation of caffeine with chlorogenic acid is also discussed as this may also help explain caffeine's localization. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 25% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 39% |
| Chemistry | 6 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,917,125
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from Planta
#550
of 2,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,355
of 180,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Planta
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,806 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.