Analysis of Ginkgo biloba for the Presence of Ginkgotoxin and Ginkgotoxin 5′-Glucoside
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hot water extracts of Ginkgo biloba seeds were analyzed for the presence of ginkgotoxin (4'-O-methylpyridoxine) by reversed-phase liquid chromatography (LC) using methanol-0.05M KH2PO4 (1 + 9, v/v) adjusted to pH 3 as mobile phase. Detection was by fluorescence (excitation 280 nm, emission 370 nm). A straight line calibration curve was obtained for the 10-100 ng injected. After addition of beta-glucosidase (37 degrees C/h), an earlier eluting peak disappeared and the ginkgotoxin peak increased. The identity of the ginkgotoxin was confirmed by LC/MS and LC/MS/MS. LC/MS/MS also confirmed the 5'-glucoside by comparison with the 3-glucoside. This is the first identification of a glucoside of ginkgotoxin in Ginkgo biloba. An unknown compound of MW 267 also observed in the Ginkgo biloba seed extract was shown not to be 3,5'-diacetylginkgotoxin by its different LC retention time. Extraction of ground Ginkgo biloba seeds with boiling water in a Soxhlet for 2 x 2 h yielded a total of 179 microg/g of free ginkgotoxin. The concentration in powder from Ginkgo biloba capsules was several times lower than this (17-64 microg/g) in 3 samples but higher in another (457 microg/g). Canned ginkgo seeds (white nuts) contained no detectable free ginkgotoxin but the glucoside was present. Different extraction times were studied: 0.5 h gave only 52 microg/g free ginkgotoxin in the ginkgo seeds. However, boiling an extract for 4 h showed about 15% loss of ginkgotoxin and its glucoside.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".