Characterization of chemical groups and determination of antioxidant, cytotoxic and anthelmintic activities of Chromolaena odorata plant growing in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromolaena odorata is widely used for wound healing in Bangladesh. The present study was an attempt to evaluate the antioxidant, cytotoxic and anthelmintic properties of crude methanolic extract of C. odorata and different fractions of the crude extract. The phytochemical screening revealed the potent source of different phytochemical constituents including Alkaloids, Phytosterols, Tannins, Terpenes, Fats and Fixed oils. Determination of total phenolic contents and DPPH methods were evaluated for antioxidant activity. The total phenolic content (mg of GAE / gm) of Crude Methanol Extract (CME), Petroleum Ether Soluble Fraction (PESF), Ethyl Acetate Soluble Fraction (EASF) and Chloroform Soluble Fraction (CSF) were 71.08±0.38, 52.08±1.01, 86.33±0.38 and 54.25±0.90, respectively. In case of DPPH method, the IC50 values were 19.48±0.49 µg/ml, 22.44±0.63µg/ml, 99.05±0.81µg/ml, 166.96±0.51 µg/ml, 317.10±0.99 µg/ml for standard (BHT: tert-butyl-1-hydroxytoluene) and the four extracts, respectively. Moreover brine shrimp lethality bioassay method was applied to determine the cytotoxic activity. The LC50 values were 0.839 µg/ml, 10.245 µg/ml, 8.98 µg/m, 8.28 µg/ml and 9.298 µg/ml for standard group (vincristin sulphate), CME, PESF, EASF and CSF respectively in brine shrimp lethality bioassay. Besides, this study was also undertaken to evaluate anthelmintic activity (using Pheretima posthuma model) where albendazole was used as reference standard. For the this test, paralysis and death time for standard (albendazole) 10mg/ml and crude extracts (10, 20, 30, 40, 50) mg/ml are 56.20±0.20 and 77.4±0.24, 30.4±0.75 and 60.8±1.03, 24.6±0.32 and 50.2±0.37, 20.6±0.40 and 40.8±0.51, 16.4±0.68 and 32.4±1.29, 10.2±0.40 and 10.2±0.40 minutes respectively. From the study it was revealed that all the extracts were abundant of various phytochemicals and showed various biological activities. So, further studies are suggested to isolate the active constituents responsible for the activities and also to know the mechanism of actions.
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".