<i>Echinacea</i>and trypanasomatid parasite interactions: Growth-inhibitory and anti-inflammatory effects of<i>Echinacea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT/OBJECTIVE: Herbal preparations derived from various species and parts of Echinacea (Asteraceae) have been advocated for various medical applications, as a result of the many antimicrobial and immunomodulatory activities attributed to them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In order to investigate their effects on parasites, four preparations of Echinacea, with distinct chemical compositions, were evaluated for growth inhibition of three species of trypanosomatids: Leishmania donovani, Leishmania major, and Trypanosoma brucei. In addition one Echinacea preparation was tested for anti-inflammatory activity in cell culture models designed to measure pro-inflammatory cytokines induced by L. donovani. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: All Echinacea preparations inhibited growth of the organisms, though with different relative potencies, and in some cases morphological changes were observed. However, there was no obvious correlation with the composition of the marker compounds, alkylamides, caffeic acid derivatives, and polysaccharides. L. donovani stimulated the production of the pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and IL-8 in human bronchial epithelial cells and in human skin fibroblasts, but in both cases the standardized ethanol extract of E. purpurea (L.) Moench (Echinaforce) abolished the stimulation, indicating anti-inflammatory activity of this extract. CONCLUSIONS: Thus various Echinacea extracts can inhibit the proliferation of these parasites and at least one can reverse the pro-inflammatory activity of Leishmania donovani.
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) | 0.002 | 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".