MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055164616 · doi:10.1002/jssc.200800700

Rapid and efficient purification of naphthodianthrones from St. John's wort extract by using liquid–liquid extraction and SEC

2009· article· en· W2055164616 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anastasia Karioti, Franco Francesco Vincieri, Anna Rita Bilia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Separation Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Compound Pharmacology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtraction (chemistry)ChromatographyLiquid–liquid extractionChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypericin and pseudohypericin, the main naphthodianthrones present in Hypericum species are among the most promising natural products, but the research concerning their biological activities is hindered by their low content in the plant. In this paper a method for the rapid isolation of hypericin and pseudohypericin from Hypericum perforatum hydro-alcoholic dried extracts has been developed. Briefly, the method consists of a partition of the extract between organic and aqueous layers and further purification of the richest extract in naphthodianthrones with Sephadex LH-20 column chromatography. A final separation of hypericin from pseudohypericin was achieved using Sephadex LH-60 column chromatography. All partitions were carried out in triplicate and monitored by LC-MS and NMR analyses. The best results were obtained by successive extraction with n-hexane, Et(2)O and EtOAc. A three-step fractionation resulted in 98% content in total naphthodianthrones. To the best of our knowledge this is the first report on the separation of hypericin from pseudohypericin using size exclusion chromatography.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Separation ScienceSame topicNatural Compound Pharmacology StudiesFrench-language works237,207