Characterization of the Effect of <i>Epilobium</i> Extracts on Human Cell Proliferation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously shown that extracts of different Epilobium species, a phytotherapeutic agent used in folk medicine as a treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia, inhibit proliferation of human prostate cells. The selectivity of this effect was evaluated in four different human cell lines (PZ-HPV-7, normal prostate cells; LNCaP, transformed prostate cells; HMEC, mammary cells, and 1321N1, astrocytoma cells). Different extracts of Epilobium species (E. rosmarinifolium, E. spicatum, and E. tetragonum) had similar growth-inhibitory effects in all cell lines tested, indicating a lack of specificity for prostate cells. Inhibition of DNA synthesis was mostly due to the nonpolar fraction of the extracts which is expected to contain flavonoids and sterols. Polar fractions were devoid of activity with the exception of that from E. rosmarinifolium. This species is the most potent in the antiproliferative effect and contains the highest concentration of oenothein B, a hydrolyzable ellagitannin. Oenothein B inhibited DNA synthesis in all four cell lines tested. Extracts of E. angustifolium (the Linné denomination of E. spicatum) and of E. spicatum from different sources were compared for their ability to inhibit DNA synthesis and for their oenothein B content. The E. angustifolium extract contained an amount of oenothein B 40-fold higher than the other extract of the same species and was ten times more potent in inhibiting DNA synthesis in a human prostate cell line. These results indicate that Epilobium extracts inhibit proliferation of prostate cells in a nonspecific manner. Oenothein B may play a role in this effect, but other active compounds are also present. The difference observed between extracts from the same species underscores the importance of determination and standardization of active ingredients in phytotherapeutic agents.
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) | 0.000 | 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".