MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485358852 · doi:10.15376/biores.6.1.232-242

Antioxidative low molecular weight extractives from triploid Populus tomentosa xylem

2010· article· en· W1485358852 on OpenAlexaff
Chuanling Si, Yi-Yuan Lu, Yu Zhang, Jie Xu, Pan-Pan Qin, Run-Cang Sun, Yonghao Ni

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Tianjin CityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsXylemChemistryDPPHColumn chromatographySephadexCaffeic acidBotanyPhenylpropanoidPhytochemicalOrganic chemistryAntioxidantBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Triploid Populus tomentosa Carr. (Salicaceae) is a good alternative to meet the increasing need of the global pulp and paper industry. Meanwhile, the xylem of this species could be a useful bioresource to develop low molecular extractives with significant bioactive potential. In the present work, a phytochemical investigation on aqueous EtOH extractives of Triploid P. tomentosa xylem, by systematical performance of Sephadex LH-20 open column chromatography and Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC), resulted in the isolation of two phenolic acids (ρ-coumaric acid (I) and caffeic acid (II)), two flavonoids (apigenin (III) and luteolin (IV)), and three phenolic glucosides (salicortin (V), salireposide (VI) and populoside (VII)). The structure elucidation and determination of the isolated extractives were based on their spectroscopical data and physiochemical evidences. This was the first time to report the low molecular weight extractives of Triploid P. tomentosa. Various low molecular weight extractives fromTriploid P. tomentosa xylem exhibited significant antioxidative activities by DPPH and hydroxyl radical scavenging assays.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207