MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153720591 · doi:10.7202/1076363ar

Antifungal efficacy of phytoconstituents of Medicago sativa against Rhizoctonia solani

2021· article· en· W3153720591 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amina Anwaar, Khajista Jabeen, Sumera Iqbal, Sumera Javad

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhizoctonia solaniMedicago sativaEthyl acetateFungicidePhytolRhizoctoniaAntifungalBiologyFungusChemistryTraditional medicineBotanyChromatographyMicrobiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research was carried out to study the antifungal properties of Medicago sativa L. against phytopathogenic fungus Rhizoctonia solani J.G. Kühn. Methanolic extract of M. sativa was estimated in vitro against the R. solani. M. sativa methanolic extract was found to be highly efficient at the concentration of 5% as it reduced 74% test fungus biomass. Test plant was further partitioned by five organic fractions namely, n-butanol, chloroform, ethyl acetate, acetone and n-hexane. These isolated fractions and synthetic fungicide control group were evaluated in vitro against R. solani. Results showed that ethyl acetate fraction and fungicide were most effectively to repress the growth of R. solani up to 61-67%. This ethyl acetate fraction was further carried out for analysis of GC-MS and nine bioactive agents were found. The most copious compounds were phytol (RT: 20.84), 1,2,3-Propanetriol, monoacetate (RT: 12.47), Z,Z-3, 15-Octadecadien-1-olacetate (RT: 21.75), Hexadecanoic acid, ethyl ester (RT: 19.72) and Benzene, nitro- (RT: 10.20). The present study can be concluded that M. sativa possesses antifungal constituents against R. solani.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207