Antioxidant Activity, Inhibition of Nitric Oxide Overproduction, and <i>In Vitro</i> Antiproliferative Effect of Maple Sap and Syrup from <i>Acer saccharum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antioxidant activity, inhibition of nitric oxide (NO) overproduction, and antiproliferative effect of ethyl acetate extracts of maple sap and syrup from 30 producers were evaluated in regard to the period of harvest in three different regions of Québec, Canada. Oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) values of maple sap and syrup extracts are, respectively, 12 +/- 6 and 15 +/- 5 micromol of Trolox equivalents (TE)/mg. The antioxidant activity was also confirmed by a cell-based assay. The period of harvest has no statistically significant incidence on the antioxidant activity of both extracts. The antioxidant activity of pure maple syrup was also determined using the ORAC assay. Results indicate that the ORAC value of pure maple syrup (8 +/- 2 micromol of TE/mL) is lower than the ORAC value of blueberry juice (24 +/- 1 micromol of TE/mL) but comparable to the ORAC values of strawberry (10.7 +/- 0.4 micromol of TE/mL) and orange (10.8 +/- 0.5 micromol of TE/mL) juices. Maple sap and syrup extracts showed to significantly inhibit lipopolysaccharide-induced NO overproduction in RAW264.7 murine macrophages. Maple syrup extract was significantly more active than maple sap extract, suggesting that the transformation of maple sap into syrup increases NO inhibition activity. The highest NO inhibition induced by the maple syrup extracts was observed at the end of the season. Moreover, darker maple syrup was found to be more active than clear maple syrup, suggesting that some colored oxidized compounds could be responsible in part for the activity. Finally, maple syrup extracts (50% inhibitory concentration = 42 +/- 6 microg/mL) and pure maple syrup possess a selective in vitro antiproliferative activity against cancer cells.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".