Total phenol, flavonoid, and individual phenolic acid contents and antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of methanol extracts from <i>Ficus cordata</i> ssp. <i>salicifolia</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the total phenol, flavonoid, and individual phenolic acid contents and the antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of methanol extracts from Ficus cordata ssp. salicifolia. Spectrophotometry and gas chromatography – mass spectrometry (GC–MS) were used for chemical analyses, and 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay was conducted to determine the antioxidant activity. The cytotoxic activity was assessed against MCF7 (human breast adenocarcinoma), A2780 (human ovary adenocarcinoma), HT29 (human colon adenocarcinoma), and MRC5 (normal human fetal lung fibroblast) using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. The total content of phenols, flavonoids, and antioxidant activity of the studied dry leaf, stem bark, twig, and fruit extracts were between 13.14 and 22.94 mg·GAE g−1 dry weight, 8.03 and 12.72 mg·QE g−1 dry weight, and 75.59% and 83.96%, respectively. Ten individual phenolic acids were quantified in the studied plant parts. The prominent phenolic acid was p-hydroxybenzoic acid, followed by vanillic acid. Methanolic fruit extracts exhibited promising cytotoxic activity against MCF7 (IC50: 21.11 μg·mL−1). Additionally, A2780 cell lines responded very well to all the extracts, with an IC50 from 8.16 to 13.72 μg·mL−1, except for the fruit extract, which was 47.39 μg·mL−1. The leaf extract showed significant cytotoxicity against HT29 cell lines, with an IC50 of 8.81 μg·mL−1. All extracts showed IC50 values ranging from 24.68 to 56.15 μg·mL−1 on normal cells. Further examination of the plant parts in this study could identify compounds accounting for the observed antioxidant and cytotoxic activities and might represent potential novel anticancer drugs.
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".