A Comparative Study of the Chemical Composition of the Extracts from Leaves, Stem Bark, and Root Bark of Cassia sieberiana: Antibacterial Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Togo, the abusive use of the root of Cassia sieberiana D.C. in traditional medicine, contributes gradually to the rarefaction of the species. The general objective of this study is to promote the use of vital organs of Cassia sieberiana in traditional medicine in Togo. The identification of secondary metabolites of the extracts (cyclohexane, dichloromethane and methanol) was carried out by GC-MS and by CL-MS / MS. The antibiotic susceptibility test was performed according to the well diffusion method and the MICs and MBCs according to the tube dilution method. Compounds such as sitosterol α-acetate, β-sitosterol, emodin, chaetochromine, luteolin, (±) -catechin, naringenin 5-O-rhamnoside, guibourtinidol- (4 alpha-> 6) -catechin and (-) - epiafzelechin are found in the root and in the stem bark. The identified molecules give the different methanolic extracts, an antibacterial effect on all the germs tested. At the end of this study, it appears that the chemical composition of the stem bark is almost similar to that of the root bark. The leaves would be better placed for the treatment of bacteria tested.
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".