MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545271465 · doi:10.1002/ptr.1597

Bioactive compounds fromRhodiola rosea (Crassulaceae)

2005· article· es· W1545271465 on OpenAlexafffund
Dong Sheng Ming, Brian J. Hillhouse, Emma S. Tomlinson Guns, Andy Eberding, Sherwin Xie, Selvarani Vimalanathan, G.H.N. Towers

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytotherapy Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMedicinal Plants and Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver General Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsRhodiola roseaStaphylococcus aureusCytotoxicityRhodiolaTyrosolChemistryTraditional medicineCrassulaceaeAntibacterial activityGallic acidFractionationStereochemistryMinimum inhibitory concentrationIC50AntimicrobialBiologyBiochemistryBotanyAntioxidantBacteriaChromatographyIn vitroOrganic chemistrySalidrosideMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The methanol extract of the underground part of Rhodiola rosea was found to show inhibitory activity against Staphylococcus aureus. Bioactivity-guided fractionation of a 95% ethanol extract from the stems of R. rosea led to the isolation of five compounds: gossypetin-7-O-L-rhamnopyranoside (1), rhodioflavonoside (2), gallic acid (3), trans-p-hydroxycinnamic acid (4) and p-tyrosol (5). Their structures were elucidated by UV, IR, MS and NMR data, as well as by comparison with those of the literature. Compounds 1 and 2 were evaluated for their antibacterial and antiprostate cancer cell activities. Compounds 1 and 2 exhibited activity against Staphylococcus aureus with minimum inhibitory concentrations of 50 microg/mL and 100 microg/mL, respectively. Cytotoxicity studies of 1 and 2 also displayed activity against the prostate cancer cell line with IC(50) values of 50 microg/mL and 80 microg/mL, respectively.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations111
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytotherapy ResearchSame topicMedicinal Plants and Bioactive CompoundsFrench-language works237,207