Comparative Evaluation of Two Structurally Related Flavonoids, Isoliquiritigenin and Liquiritigenin, for Their Oral Infection Therapeutic Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isoliquiritigenin (1) and liquiritigenin (2) are structurally related flavonoids found in a variety of plants. The purpose of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of biological properties of these compounds in regard to their therapeutic potential for oral infections. Compound 1 demonstrated significant antibacterial activity against three major periodontopathogens, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Prevotella intermedia. In contrast, 2 exerted less pronounced effects on the above bacterial species. Neither compound was effective against cariogenic bacteria (Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sobrinus). Furthermore, 1 exhibited a stronger inhibitory activity than 2 toward P. gingivalis collagenase and human matrix metalloproteinase 9. Finally, the capacity of 1 to attenuate the inflammatory response of macrophages induced by Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was much higher when compared to 2. The activation of transcriptional factors nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) p65 and activator protein-1 (AP-1) associated with the LPS-induced inflammatory response in macrophages was inhibited strongly by 1, but less affected by 2.
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".