Extraction and isolation of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors from <i>Citrus limon</i> peel using an in vitro method
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A simple and efficient ultrafiltration-liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based method was developed for the rapid screening and identification of ligands from Citrus limon peel, which are suitable acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. Subsequently, the anti-Alzheimer's activity of these compounds was assessed using a PC12 cell model. Six major compounds, viz. neoeriocitrin, isonaringin, naringin, hesperidin, neohesperidin, and limonin, were identified as potent acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. A continuous and efficient online method, which involved the use of a microwave-assisted extraction device, solvent concentration tank, and centrifugal partition chromatography column, was developed for the scale-up of these compounds, and the obtained compounds presented high purity. Next, their bioactivity was evaluated using a PC12 cell model. This novel approach, which was based on ultrafiltration-liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, microwave-assisted extraction online coupled with solvent concentration tank, and centrifugal partition chromatography along with in vitro evaluation, could represent a powerful tool for the screening and extraction of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors from complex matrices, and could be a useful platform for the large-scale production of bioactive and nutraceutical ingredients.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it