Rosa canina L. – new possibilities for an old medicinal herb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health beneficial properties of Rosa canina species are mainly attributed to rose hips, while the leaves are usually discarded as waste. In the present study we investigated chemical constituents as well as antimicrobial and antibiofilm potential of R. canina methanolic leaf extract. Chemical analysis showed that dominant phenolic compounds are quercetin and isorhamnetin derivatives (isoquercetin and isorhamnetin-3-O-rutinoside). Among the tested bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Salmonella typhimurium were the most susceptible to the activity of R. canina leaf extract with MIC and MBC values both 0.009 mg mL(-1). For most of the bacterial strains investigated the extract showed significantly higher activity compared to the used standard compounds streptomycin and ampicillin. Also the tested extract powerfully inhibited in vitro biofilm growth in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Leishmania monocytogenes and Escherichia coli at sub MIC-levels. With concentrations equal to 1/4 and 1/8 of MIC values biofilm growth of P. aeruginosa and E. coli was inhibited by 90%. The obtained results are significant for a wider and efficient use of R. canina leaves.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".