MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Screening of medium composition for the free radical‐scavenging properties by <i>Antrodia cinnamomea</i>

2010· article· en· W2024629235 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ching‐Ting Yang, Jong‐Tar Kuo, En‐Shyh Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Biology and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeef Cattle Research CouncilNational Science Council
KeywordsChemistryDPPHSuperoxideXyloseScavengingNuclear chemistryFructoseRadicalOrganic chemistryFood scienceAntioxidantFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The effects of nutritional conditions on the scavenging capacity on superoxide anion radical and 2,2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical of ethanolic extracts from filtrates of Antrodia cinnamomea were investigated in shake‐flask cultures. Culture medium significantly affected inhibition of superoxide anion generation and DPPH free radical scavenging activity. In contrast, both scavenging capabilities on superoxide anion radical and DPPH free radical were found to be greatly affected by varying the carbon source, the nitrogen source, the growth factors or the trace elements. The maximal inhibition of superoxide anion generation could be obtained when the culture medium compositions were: xylose, ammonium oxalate, nicotinic acid, NaH 2 PO 4 and CuSO 4 ; while a maximal DPPH free radical scavenging activity could be achieved when the medium composition setting as: fructose, peptone, nicotinic acid, KH 2 PO 4 and CaCl 2 (the scavenging effects on superoxide anion radical and DPPH free radical were increased to 96.3 ± 0.3% and 29.0 ± 1.0%, respectively). We proved that controlling the culturing conditions and modifying the composition of the medium can dramatically enhance the scavenging ability on superoxide anion radical and DPPH free radical of A. cinnamomea .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicFungal Biology and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207