Identification of flavonoids of Wheatgrass (Triticum aestivum L.) at various stages of growth and evaluation of their Antioxidant Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheatgrass are 6-10 days young plantlet of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Ethopharmacologically, the wheatgrass is recognized for its anti-aging and other health promoting properties. This study was aimed at identifying the phytochemical composition of wheatgrass (var. Chinese Spring) and evaluating its antioxidant potentials at different stages of growth (5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th day). Phytochemical components were extracted with methanol and total phenolic contents (TPC) and total flavonoid contents (TFC) of the extracts were evaluated. DPPH (1,1ꞌ- diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl), bleaching of β-carotene and metal chelating activity was used to assess the antioxidant activity of the extract and further correlated with TPC and TFC. Based on comparison of IC50 data, DPPH radical scavenging activity of the extract was found to be best at 7th day of the growth and equivalent to standard gallic acid. The extract exhibited excellent metal chelating activity and β-carotene bleaching property on 9th day of growth and the IC50 corresponded with standard ascorbic acid and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), respectively. Preliminary screening with thin layer chromatography identified the probable flavonoids which could be quercetin, rutin or myricetin and their glcycosides. Significant correlation between antioxidant activity with TPC and TFC ascertained that phenolics and flavonoids were the major contributors of antioxidant activity.
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".