In vitro: Antimicrobial potential and phytochemical screening of some egyptian aquatic plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethanolic and water extracts of three macrophytes (roots); Echinochloa stagnina (Retz.) P. Beauv; Pistia stratiotes (L.) and Nymphaea lotus (L.) from El-Serw, Dakahlia, Egypt were studied to verify their antimicrobial activities against certain microbial isolates by using agar well diffusion method. Bi-fold dilution technique revealed that all the tested microorganisms showed susceptibility to moderate resistance against E. stagnina ethanolic extract, with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) values varied between 78.125 and 625.00 μg/ml, while its water extract showed antimicrobial activities that were significantly reduced by almost 50% compared to the ethanolic one. On the other hand N. lotus and P. stratiotes water extracts had no activity against all tested microorganisms. The phytochemical screening revealed the presence of some biologically active substances (flavonoides, tannins, sterols and resins) with different concentrations. E. stagnina roots were shown to possess the highest polyphenols contents 3.20 ± 0.01 g/100 g dry wt., moreover some heavy ions as Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu were presist with different concentrations varied significantly (P < 0.05) with plant species and solvent used in extraction.
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".