Secondary Assays for Testing the Mode of Action of Natural Products with Bioactivity Against Fungi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of novel antifungals is needed, and plant-derived compounds offer important leads in this respect. This article initiates a compendium of secondary assays for testing hypotheses on mode of action of plant-derived compounds. Three assays were developed to evaluate compounds that are hypothesized to effect cell wall function, transcription, and oxidative stress. A hypothesized perturbation on cell wall integrity by chimaphilin and Echinacea. root extracts was supported using sonication and heat shock assays. Heat shock treatments reduced the number of viable cells recovered when yeast was grown in the presence of subinhibitory concentrations of chimaphilin. A reduction in cell numbers was also observed with both sonication-based and heat shock–based assays when yeast was grown in the presence of Echinacea purpurea. (L.) Moench (Asteraceae) extracts. The hypothesis that chimaphilin impedes mRNA transcription processes was also supported by a β-galactosidase reporter gene assay. The antioxidant activity of nordihydroguaiaretic acid (NDGA) and ascorbic acid were assessed using a yeast strain that does not grow under hyperoxic conditions. At the concentrations assayed, NDGA did not remediate this sensitivity to hyperoxia, whereas ascorbic acid did. These and additional assays are further reviewed with an aim to collate and standardize secondary assays and streamline antifungal mode of action determinations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".