Essential Oil Composition and Antimicrobial Activity of the Oil and Extracts of Bunium persicum (Boiss.) B. Fedtsch.: Wild and Cultivated Fruits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Fruits of Bunium persicum (Boiss.) B. Fedtsch (Apiaceae) has been used as spice, anti-flatulence and antiseptic agent for many years. In recent years the wild resources of the plant have been threatened by extinction. Domestication of such a plant saves its genetic resources from depletion. However, concerns remain about the possible changes due to development of chemotypes and changes in the composition and biological and pharmacological potentials. Methods: Analyses of essential oils from fruits of wild and cultivated types was performed using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy. Antimicrobial assessment was done by agar diffusion method Results: The main compounds of both oils were included γ-terpinene (30.77% and 27.57%), cuminaldehyde (20.49% and 21.1%), ρ-cymene (20.1% and 18.32%) and γ-terpinen-7-al (8.29% and 7.84%) respectively. Analytical results of both tested oils exhibited very close similarities in major compounds, whereas some differences in their percentages were observed. In vitro antimicrobial evaluation of volatile oils, total extract and the resultant fractions against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Candida albicans demonstrated some similarities and differences. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of wild grown fruits essential oils ranged between 0.375-1.5 mg/ml, while those of cultivated one were 0.75-6.25 mg/ml. All extracts and fractions showed similarly minor antibacterial potential while anti-Candida albicans activity was much remarkable with MICs calculated 2.5-5 mg/ml for cultivated and 5 mg/ml for wild grown extracts and fractions. Conclusion: In conclusion, despite the substantial similarities in composition of both oils, the alteration in antimicrobial results may be caused by variety in concentration of major and minor compounds and their synergism or antagonism in mixture.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".