Antioxidant Activity and Phytochemical Content of Fresh and Freeze-Dried Lepisanthes fruticosa Fruits at Different Maturity Stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antioxidant and phytochemical compounds of fruits can vary widely depending on many factors such as processing and maturity stage as one of the major contributors. Therefore, this study investigated the antioxidant activity and phytochemical attributes of fresh and freeze-dried Lepisanthes fruticosa fruit extracts at eight different maturity stages. The freeze-dried extracts were obtained by lyophilisation using a freeze-dryer. In general, antioxidant activity and phytochemical contents of both fresh (FLF) and freeze-dried (FDLF) extracts showed a decrease with fruit maturation. Among the eight maturity stages developed for L. fruticosa, the lower maturity (unripe) stages exhibited the strongest potential, with stage 1 being the most notable. The FDLF fruit extracts were found to be significantly (P < 0.05) stronger radical scavenger than FLF extracts at all maturity stages tested. The IC50 values of FDLF for the eight maturity stages were more effective, with stage 1 showing the lowest IC50 (1.57 mg/ml). Total phenolic content of FDLF was also significantly (P < 0.05) higher than FLF at all eight stages tested, with the highest also being shown at stage 1 (15848.96 ± 401.82 mg/100 g). On the contrary, FLF extracts displayed significantly (P < 0.05) higher total flavonoid content than FDLF at almost all stages except for 2, 3 and 6. The highest content was shown in stage 1 with 37.35 ± 0.77 mg/100 g. These findings showed that antioxidant activity and phytochemical content of L. fruticosa fruits were significantly affected by processing and maturity. The obtained results are important for the promotion of use of L. fruticosa fruit extracts as a natural antioxidant in functional food production in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".