Comparative antioxidant activities and synergism of resveratrol and oxyresveratrol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resveratrol (1) and oxyresveratrol (2) are phytoalexins with antioxidant activities (AAs) and proposed effects against several pathological processes. The main objective of this study was to provide a novel, comparative assessment of their AAs, and to test for potential synergism in their combined activities, or in combination with another phytochemical antioxidant, curcumin (3). The phytochemicals were tested at 10 µM total concentrations in a heme-based assay that involved, as the final step, quantification of tetramethyl-phenylene-diamine oxidation. Significant AAs were observed for both 1 and 2, 27-33% inhibition of oxidation (p < 0.05 relative to non-phytochemical control). The combination of 1 and 2 in the same assay (5 µM each) suggested a moderate synergistic effect of about 10% (41% inhibition of oxidation by 1/2 under the same conditions as for 1 and 2 separately). Combinations of 1/3 and 2/3 were also synergistic, but 1/3 had a two-fold greater AA (p < 0.05) than 2/3 (or 1/2). Our results indicate that (i) 1 and 2 are effective antioxidants in the assay, (ii) in combination, their AAs can synergise, and (iii) in relation to 2, 1 has a much greater synergistic potential with 3. The latter suggests different synergy mechanisms of the curcuminoid with each of the two stilbene phytoalexins.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".