MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091732736 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v5n3p12

Structure-Based in Silico Study of 6-Gingerol, 6-Ghogaol, and 6-Paradol, Active Compounds of Ginger (Zingiber officinale) as COX-2 Inhibitors

2013· article· en· W2091732736 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nyi Mekar Saptarini, Evi Yanti Sitorus, Jutti Levita

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryZingiber officinaleIn silicoGingerolEnzymeStereochemistryDocking (animal)PharmacologyBiochemistryChromatographyTraditional medicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ginger’s (Zingiber officinale) phenolic compounds, that are 6-gingerol, 6-shogaol, and 6-paradol, have been proven to show anti-inflammatory activity. The purpose of this paper was to discover whether these compounds are potential to be used as COX-2 inhibitors through structure-based in silico study, which is based on the character of the receptor. Docking was performed to the binding pockets of both COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes, to examine their selective character on COX-2. The binding pockets used in this project were the sites where flurbiprofen and SC-58, crystallized in the enzymes. The scoring value of the interaction of 6-gingerol, 6-shogaol, and 6-paradol with COX-1 were -7.40, -7.27, and -7.20 kcal/mol, while with COX-2 were -7.97, -8.10, and -7.80 kcal/mol, respectively. Ki value to COX-1 were 3.78, 4.66, and 5.30 ?M, while to COX-2 were 1.46, 1.16, and 1.93 ?M, respectively. We also calculated the selectivity index value of these compounds to COX-2 and resulted an interval of 0.2 to 0.4, which indicated that all tested compounds could be classified as preferential COX-2 inhibitors. It can be concluded that 6-gingerol, 6-shogaol, and 6-paradol could be developed as COX-2 inhibitors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effectsFrench-language works237,207