Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of Gongronema latifolium
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical composition of Gongronema latifolium leaves was determined using standard methods. Aqueous and methanol G. latifolium extracts were tested against thirteen pathogenic bacterial isolates. Crude protein, lipid extract, ash, crude fibre and nitrogen free extractives obtained are: 27.2%, 6.07%, 11.6%, 10.8% and 44.3% dry matter respectively. Potassium, sodium, calcium, phosphorus and cobalt contents are 332, 110, 115, 125 and 116 mg/kg respectively. Dominant essential amino acids are leucine, valine and phenylalanine. Aspartic acid, glutamic acid and glycine are 13.8%, 11.9% and 10.3% respectively of total amino acid. Saturated and unsaturated fatty acids are 50.2% and 39.4% of the oil respectively. Palmitic acid makes up 36% of the total fatty acid. Extracts show no activity against E. faecalis, Y. enterolytica, E. aerogenes, B. cereus and E. agglomerans. Methanol extracts were active against S. enteritidis, S. cholerasius ser typhimurium and P. aeruginosa (minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) 1 mg; zone of growth inhibition 7, 6.5 and 7 mm respectively). Aqueous extracts show activity against E. coli (MIC 5 mg) and P. aeruginosa (MIC 1 mg) while methanol extracts are active against P. aeruginosa and L. monocytogenes. G. latifolium has potential food and antibacterial uses.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it