The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Composition differences between epicuticular and intracuticular wax substructures: How do plants seal their epidermal surfaces?
Open accessAbstract
The protective wax coating on plant surfaces has long been considered to be non-uniform in composition at a subcellular scale. In recent years, direct evidence has started to accumulate showing quantitative compositional differences between the epicuticular wax (i.e. wax exterior to cutin that can be mechanically peeled off) and intracuticular wax (i.e. wax residing within the mechanically resistant layer of cutin) layers in particular. This review provides a first synthesis of the results acquired for all the species investigated to date in order to assign chemical information directly to cuticle substructures, together with an overview of the methods used and a discussion of possible mechanisms and biological functions. The development of methods to probe the wax for z-direction heterogeneity began with differential solvent extractions. Further research employing mechanical wax removal by adhesives permitted the separation and analysis of the epicuticular and intracuticular wax. In wild-type plants, the intracuticular (1-30 μg cm(-2)) plus the epicuticular wax (5-30 μg cm(-2)) combined to a total of 8-40 μg cm(-2). Cyclic wax constituents, such as triterpenoids and alkylresorcinols, preferentially or entirely accumulate within the intracuticular layer. Within the very-long-chain aliphatic wax components, primary alcohols tend to accumulate to higher percentages in the intracuticular wax layer, while free fatty acids and alkanes in many cases accumulate in the epicuticular layer. Compounds with different chain lengths are typically distributed evenly between the layers. The mechanism causing the fractionation remains to be elucidated but it seems plausible that it involves, at least in part, spontaneous partitioning due to the physico-chemical properties of the wax compounds and interactions with the intracuticular polymers. The arrangement of compounds probably directly influences cuticular functions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Pöschl, U., & Shiraiwa, M. (2015) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr500487s · Cited by 657
Bernard, A., Domergue, F., Pascal, S., Jetter, R., Renne, C., Faure, J.-D., Haslam, R. P., Napier, J. A., Lessire, R., & Joubès, J. (2012) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.112.099796 · Cited by 485
Self-citationAdvances in the understanding of cuticular waxes in Arabidopsis thaliana and crop species
Lee, S. B., & Suh, M. C. (2015) · Plant Cell Reports · doi:10.1007/s00299-015-1772-2 · Cited by 406
Jetter, R., & Riederer, M. (2016) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.15.01699 · Cited by 206
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Buschhaus, C., & Jetter, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Botany
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-12-30
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 841-853
- ISSN
- 0022-0957 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2431
- OpenAlex
- W2165182055
- Cited by
- 310
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Composition differences between epicuticular and intracuticular wax substructures: How do plants seal their epidermal surfaces? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jxb/erq366
- The paper
- Buschhaus, C., & Jetter, R. (2011). Composition differences between epicuticular and intracuticular wax substructures: How do plants seal their epidermal surfaces? Journal of Experimental Botany. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq366
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.