Polyphenol composition and antioxidant potential of mint leaves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soluble and insoluble/bound phenolic compounds and an aqueous infusion of two mint species (Medina and Hasawi), were tested for their total phenolic content, 2,2′-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulphonate (ABTS) and 1,1-diphenyl-2picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity, iron (III) reduction, iron (II) chelating and oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC). Furthermore, the potency of the mint extracts in the inhibition of radical-induced DNA scission, human low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol oxidation, formation of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) in a cooked ground meat system and LPS (lipopolysaccharide)-stimulated cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression in J774A.1 mouse macrophage cells were monitored. Results showed that the soluble phenolics had a higher phenolic content and antioxidant activity than the insoluble-bound extracts and aqueous infusions in most of the assays. Both varieties exhibited notable antioxidant activities and inhibition of LDL cholesterol oxidation, DNA scission and COX-2 gene expression at transcriptional level. However, Medina mint was a more potent antioxidant than the Hasawi mint. High performance liquid chromatography with online tandem electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (HPLC/ESI-MS/MS) analysis of the extracts revealed that rosmarinic acid was the major phenolic compound present in both mint samples.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".