Antimicrobial, Antiparasitic, Anti‐Inflammatory, and Cytotoxic Activities of <i>Lopezia racemosa</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigates the potential benefits of the Mexican medicinal plant Lopezia racemosa (Onagraceae). Extracts and fractions from aerial parts of this plant were assessed to determine their antibacterial, antifungal, antiparasitic, anti-inflammatory and cytotoxic activities in vitro. Aerial parts of the plant were extracted with various solvents and fractionated accordingly. Extracts and fractions were tested against a panel of nine bacterial and four fungal species. The antiparasitic activity was tested against Leishmania donovani, whereas the anti-inflammatory activity of the compounds was determined by measuring the secretion of interleukin-6 from human-derived macrophages. The same macrophage cell line was used to investigate the cytotoxicity of the compounds. Various extracts and fractions showed antibacterial, antifungal, antiparasitic, and anti-inflammatory activities. The hexanic fraction HF 11-14b was the most interesting fraction with antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory activities. The benefit of L. racemosa as a traditional medicinal plant was confirmed as shown by its antibacterial, antifungal and anti-inflammatory activities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study reporting the biological activities of L. racemosa, including antiparasitic and anti-inflammatory activities.
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".