ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITIES OF ENZYMATIC EXTRACTS FROM AN EDIBLE SEAWEED <i>SARGASSUM HORNERI</i> USING ESR SPECTROMETRY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The antioxidant activity of water‐soluble natural extracts from an edible seaweed, Sargassum horneri, was evaluated by examining the radical scavenging activities of the extracts of hydrolyzates from S. horneri on 1,1‐diphenyl‐2‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), hydroxyl and alkyl radicals. A spin‐trapping electron spin resonance (ESR) spectrophotometer was employed and the results were compared for their ESR signal intensity. The brown seaweed S. horneri was enzymatically hydrolyzed to prepare water‐soluble extracts by five carbohydrases (AMG, Celluclast, Termamyl, Ultraflo and Viscozyme) and five proteases (Alcalase, Flavourzyme, Kojizyme, Neutrase, Protamex). The extracts so prepared exhibited strong scavenging activity on DPPH, hydroxyl and alkyl radicals. The scavenging activity of the radicals increased with increased concentration of the extracts. The scavenging results were higher or similar for hydroxyl and alkyl radicals, and lower for DPPH radical compared with vitamin C as a reference. Viscozyme and Alcalase extracts were superior and scavenged radicals examined better than the extracts prepared by other carbohydrases and proteases.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".