MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969901333 · doi:10.3390/antiox8090339

Polyphenolic Composition and Antioxidant Activity of Uncaria tomentosa Commercial Bark Products

2019· article· en· W2969901333 on OpenAlexaff
Mirtha Navarro-Hoyos, Elizabeth Arnáez-Serrano, Ileana Moreira, Alonso Hurtado, Daniela Monge, Marı́a Monagas

Bibliographic record

VenueAntioxidants · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicAlkaloids: synthesis and pharmacology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersConsejo Superior de Investigaciones CientíficasFundación Costa Rica Estados Unidos para la CooperaciónAgencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el DesarrolloUniversidad de Costa Rica
KeywordsProanthocyanidinPolyphenolOxygen radical absorbance capacityChemistryFood scienceBark (sound)AntioxidantComposition (language)BotanyTraditional medicineAntioxidant capacityOrganic chemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uncaria tomentosa, which is widely commercialized as an herbal medicine, constitutes an important source of secondary metabolites with diverse biological activities. For instance, we have previously reported, for the first time, of a polyphenolic profile rich in proanthocyanidins from extracts of U. tomentosa plants, as well as their antioxidant capacity, antimicrobial activity on aerial bacteria, and cytotoxicity on cancer cell lines. These promising results prompted this research to evaluate the polyphenolic contents of U. tomentosa commercial products. We report a detailed study on the polyphenolic composition of extracts from U. tomentosa bark products (n = 18) commercialized in Costa Rica and Spain. Using HPLC-DAD/TQ-ESI-MS, a total of 25 polyphenolic compounds were identified, including hydroxybenzoic and hydroxycinnamic acids, flavan-3-ol monomers, procyanidin dimers, procyanidin trimers, as well as propelargonidin dimers. Our findings on the polyphenolic profile for all commercial samples show analogous composition to previous reports on U. tomentosa bark material, for instance a 41–49% content of procyanidin dimers and the presence of propelargonidin dimers (8–15%). However, most of the 18 commercial samples exhibit low proanthocyanidin contents (254.8–602.8 µg/g), more similar to previous U. tomentosa inner bark reports, while some exhibit better results, with one sample (SP-2) showing the highest contents (2386.5 µg/g) representing twice the average value of all 18 commercial products. This sample also exhibits the highest total phenolics (TP) and total proanthocyanidins (PRO) contents, as well as the highest Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC) value (1.31 µg TE/g). One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with a Tukey post hoc test indicated significant difference (p < 0.05) between products from Costa Rica and Spain for TP and PRO findings, with samples from Spain exhibiting a higher average value. In addition, Pearson correlation analysis results showed a positive correlation (p < 0.05) between TP, PRO, and ORAC results, and an especially important correlation between ORAC antioxidant values and procyanidin dimers (r = 0.843, p < 0.05), procyanidin trimers (r = 0.847, p < 0.05), and propelargonidin dimers (r = 0.851, p < 0.05) contents. Finally, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) results indicated some variability in the composition regardless of their origin. However, only one sample (SP-2) stands out significatively, showing the highest PC1 because of its particularly high proanthocyanidins contents, which could be attributed to the 15% bark polyphenolic extract labeled in this commercial product, which differentiate this sample from all other 17 commercial samples. Therefore, our findings confirmed previous results on the value of extracts in the elaboration of potential commercial products from U. tomentosa, rich in proanthocyanidins and exhibiting high 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations44
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntioxidantsSame topicAlkaloids: synthesis and pharmacologyFrench-language works237,207