A new phenyl alkyl ester and a new combretin triterpene derivative from Combretum fragrans F. Hoffm (Combretaceae) and antiproliferative activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This work concerns the isolation and structure elucidation of compounds obtained from the extract of leaves and stem bark of Combretum fragrans F. Hoffm. Both extracts and some isolated compounds were tested for antiproliferative activity on glioblastoma (U87MG and C6 cells) and prostate (PC-3 cells) cancer cell lines using XTT (2,3-bis[2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl]-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxyanilide inner salt) assay. The dichloromethane/methanol (1:1) extract of the leaves led to the isolation of two new compounds such as fragransinate (1) and combretin C (2), alongside five known compounds such as combretin A (3), belamcanidin (4), cirsilineol (5), velutin (6), and a mixture of β-sitosterol-3-O-β-d-glucopyranoside (10a) and stigmasterol-3-O-β-d-glucopyranoside (10b), whereas the methanol extract of the stem bark led to the isolation of three known compounds betulinic acid (7), bellericagenin B (8), and a mixture of β-sitosterol (9a) and stigmasterol (9b). The structure of compounds was elucidated by nuclear magnetic resonance and mass spectrometry data. The methanol extract of the stem bark showed a powerful antiproliferative activity on all tested cells, as well as the extract of leaves which also showed important cytotoxicity effect. Compound (3) showed good antiproliferative activity particularly on U87MG and PC-3 cells, whereas compound (5) exhibits moderated activity. Compounds (2) and (8) were not active on all tested cells.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".