Study of Polyphenol Content and Antioxidant Capacity of Myrianthus Arboreus (Cecropiaceae) Root Bark Extracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to evaluate the therapeutic potential of polyphenolic extracts from root bark of M. arboreus, we have determined the content of various polyphenols in aqueous and ethanol (EtOH) extract as well as two sub-fractions of the latter: ethyl acetate (EAc) and hexane (Hex). The total phenols, flavonoids, hydroxycinnamic acids and proanthocyanidins have been determined for all studied extracts/fractions by spectrophotometric methods. Both TP content (331.5 ± 2.5 mg GAE/g) and HCA content (201 ± 1.5 mg CAE/g) were determined to be the highest in EAc fraction of EtOH extract. All studied extracts were however determined to have a low content in flavonoids. The determination of antioxidant capacities of the studied extracts has also been performed by the following in vitro antioxidant tests: DPPH scavenging, phosphomolybdenum method and oxygen radical absorbance (ORACFl and ORACPRG) assay. The results of the DPPH free radical and ORACFl assays showed that there is no significant difference between the EAc fraction and Oligopin(®), but the EAc fraction exhibited the highest antioxidant capacity as determined by the phosphomolybdenium method. In addition, the EtOH extract was determined to have the same antioxidant efficiency as the synthetic antioxidant BHT or commercial extract Oligopin(®) by phosphomolybdenum method. On the other hand, a positive correlation (r < 0.6) was found between different classes of polyphenols and the results of the phosphomolybdenum method, ORACFl as well as ORACPRG, except for the DPPH assay, for which a negative correlation was indicated (r < 0.62). Interestingly, it seems that the content in hydroxycinnamic acids played a big role in all assays with r < 0.9. According to the present study, EAc fraction and EtOH extract should be further studied for the potential use in the pharmaceutical and food industry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".