MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334500575 · doi:10.1021/jf103436p

Purification of Alkylamides from Echinacea angustifolia (DC.) Hell. Roots by High-Speed Countercurrent Chromatography

2010· article· en· W2334500575 on OpenAlexaff
Daíse Lopes-Lutz, Elizabeth Mudge, Robert Ippolito, Paula N. Brown, Andreas Schieber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerbal Medicine Research Studies
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyEmissions Reduction AlbertaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCountercurrent chromatographyEchinacea (animal)ChromatographyChemistryTraditional medicinePharmacognosyHigh-performance liquid chromatographyBiological activityMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-speed countercurrent chromatography (HSCCC) was used for the separation of alkylamides from the roots of Echinacea angustifolia (DC.) Hell. For this purpose, the alkylamides were extracted with hexane and subjected to semipreparative HSCCC using a two-phase solvent system consisting of n-hexane, ethyl acetate, methanol, and water (4:1:2:1). The lower aqueous phase was used as the mobile phase at a flow rate of 3 mL/min and a rotary speed of 1000 rpm. This procedure led to the isolation of four pure alkylamides, that is, dodeca-2E,4E,8Z,10E/Z-tetraenoic acid isobutylamide (38.9 mg, 97% purity), dodeca-2E,4E,8Z-trienoic acid isobutylamide (4.4 mg, 92% purity), dodeca-2E,4E-dienoic acid isobutylamide (3.2 mg, 99% purity), and dodeca-2E,4E-dienoic acid 2-methylbutylamide (0.3 mg, 92% purity). The identity and purity of the isolated alkylamides were confirmed by LC-ESI-MS and (1)H NMR and (13)C NMR data. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first report of dodeca-2E,4E-dienoic acid 2-methylbutylamide in E. angustifolia roots.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicHerbal Medicine Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207