MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280910253 · doi:10.1002/ptr.5545

Antifungal Saponins from the Maya Medicinal Plant <i>Cestrum schlechtendahlii</i> G. Don (Solanaceae)

2015· article· en· W2280910253 on OpenAlexafffund
Chieu Anh Kim Ta, Jose-Antonio Guerrero-Analco, Elizabeth Lewis Roberts, Rui Liu, Christopher Mogg, Ammar Saleem, Marco Otárola‐Rojas, Luis Poveda, Pablo Sánchez-Vindas, Victor Cal, Federico Caal, Rajagopal Subramaniam, Myron L. Smith, John T. Arnason

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytotherapy Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNatural product bioactivities and synthesis
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSaponinTraditional medicineAntifungalCryptococcus neoformansCandida albicansPharmacognosyBotanySolanaceaeMinimum inhibitory concentrationBiologyChemistryStereochemistryBiological activityMicrobiologyAntimicrobialBiochemistryMedicineIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioassay-guided fractionation of the crude extract (80% EtOH) of the leaves of Cestrum schlechtendahlii, a plant used by Q'eqchi' Maya healers for treatment of athlete's foot, resulted in the isolation and identification of two spirostanol saponins (1 and 2). Structure elucidation by MS, 1D-NMR, and 2D-NMR spectroscopic methods identified them to be the known saponin (25R)-1β,2α-dihydroxy-5α-spirostan-3-β-yl-O-α-L-rhamnopyranosyl-(1 → 2)-β-D-galactopyranoside (1) and new saponin (25R)-1β,2α-dihydroxy-5α-spirostan-3-β-yl-O-β-D-galactopyranoside (2). While 2 showed little or no antifungal activity at the highest concentration tested, 1 inhibited growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 15-25 μM), Candida albicans, Cryptococcus neoformans, and Fusarium graminearum (MIC of 132-198 μM).

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytotherapy ResearchSame topicNatural product bioactivities and synthesisFrench-language works237,207