MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073195235 · doi:10.1021/np030524n

A New Antimalarial Quassinoid from<i>Simaba</i><i>o</i><i>rinocensis</i>

2004· article· he· W2073195235 on OpenAlexaff
Ilias Muhammad, Erdal Bedіr, Shabana I. Khan, Babu L. Tekwani, Ikhlas A. Khan, Satoshi Takamatsu, Jerry Pelletier, Larry Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Natural Products · 2004
Typearticle
Languagehe
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhytochemical compounds biological activities
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasmodium falciparumIC50DerivatizationChemistryStereochemistryVero cellBark (sound)Traditional medicineBiologyHigh-performance liquid chromatographyIn vitroMedicineBiochemistryChromatographyMalariaImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new antimalarial quassinoid, namely, orinocinolide (1), was isolated from the root bark of Simaba orinocensis, together with the previously reported simalikalactone D (2). The structure of 1 was determined primarily from 1D and 2D NMR analysis, as well as by chemical derivatization. Compound 1 was found to be as equally potent as 2 against Plasmodium falciparum clones D6 and W2 (IC(50) 3.27 and 8.53 ng/mL vs 3.0 and 3.67 ng/mL, respectively), but was 4- and 28-fold less toxic than 2 against VERO cells (IC(50) 10 vs 2.3 microg/mL) and HL-60 (IC(50) 0.7 vs 0.025 microg/mL), respectively. In addition, 2 was >46- and >31-fold more potent than pentamidine and amphotericin B (IC(50) 0.035 vs 1.6 and 1.1 microg/mL) against Leishmania donovani, while 1 was inactive. Orinocinolide (1) inhibited growth of human cancer cells SK-MEL, KB, BT-549, and SK-OV-3, but was less potent than 2 (IC(50) 0.8-1.9 vs 0.3-1.0 microg/mL) against these cells.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations57
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Natural ProductsSame topicPhytochemical compounds biological activitiesFrench-language works237,207