Comparative and synergistic activity of <i>Rosmarinus officinalis</i> L. essential oil constituents against the larvae and an ovarian cell line of the cabbage looper, <i>Trichoplusia ni</i> (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plant essential oils are usually complex mixtures, and many factors can affect their chemical composition. To identify relationships between the composition and bioactivity of the constituents, comparative and synergistic interactions of the major constituents of rosemary essential oil were evaluated against third-instar larvae and an ovarian cell line of the cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni, via different methods of application. RESULTS: The major constituents of the rosemary oil we used were 1,8-cineole, (±)-camphor, (+)-α-pinene and camphene. Via topical application to larvae, 1,8-cineole was identified as the major active compound, whereas via fumigation, 1,8-cineole and (±)-camphor, and in a cytotoxicity assay, (+)-α-pinene, were determined to be the major active principles. Several combinations of these constituents exhibited synergistic insecticidal activities when topically applied, particularly among combinations of three major constituents, (±)-camphor, (+)-α-pinene and camphene. A binary mixture of 1,8-cineole and (±)-camphor showed enhanced activity, with a synergy ratio of 1.72. CONCLUSION: Based on our results, the insecticidal activity of rosemary oil appears to be a consequence of the synergistic interaction between 1,8-cineole and (±)-camphor, and (±)-camphor should be considered a promising synergizing agent.
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 | 0.000 | 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".