Characterization of Antiviral Activities in<i>Echinacea</i>. Root Preparations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The roots of three commonly used taxa of Echinacea.—E. purpurea., E. pallida. var. pallida., and E. pallida. var. angustifolia.—were extracted and fractionated by means of accelerated solvent extraction to reflect the most commonly used methods for commercial preparations. These fractions were analyzed by HPLC for their content of caffeic acid derivatives and alkamides and for antiviral activities against three viruses often implicated in colds and influenza. Aqueous extracts of E. purpurea. root contained a relatively potent activity against herpes simplex virus (HSV) and influenza virus (FV) but not against rhinovirus (RV). These fractions had low amounts of caffeic acids and alkamides. The ethyl acetate fraction contained significant but weak activity against both HSV and FV and contained significant levels of cichoric acid. In contrast, E. pallida. var. angustifolia. gave no water-soluble antiviral activity, but the ethanolic and ethyl acetate fractions contained significant activity against all three viruses, and this activity correlated with the presence of alkamides. E. pallida. var. pallida., however, gave no antiviral activity in any of the fractions, and this observation accorded well with the near absence of the marker compounds. Thus, we have detected a relatively potent water-soluble antiviral activity in E. purpurea. root, together with the weaker antiviral cichoric acid; an antiviral alkamide fraction in E. pallida. var. angustifolia.; but no antiviral activity in E. pallida. var. pallida.. Therefore, different types of Echinacea. root preparations, such as tinctures, tablets, and teas, based on different species and extraction methods, would be expected to offer quite different antiviral profiles.
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 | 0.001 | 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".