In Vitro Antimicrobial, Antioxidant and Anticancer Activities of Egyptian Citrus Beebread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, Egyptian beebread (EBB) was investigated for its nutritive value, chemical composition, antioxidant properties, antimicrobial and antitumor activities. Results indicated that EBB was a good source of protein (23.58 ± 0.183 g/100 g BB), total free sugar (20.266 ± 0.930) and potassium (290.202 ± 2.645 mg/100 g). Additionally, 14 fatty acids were identified in EBB, wherein polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids represented 51.06% ± 0.09% and 9.86% ± 0.01%, respectively. The EBB extract exhibited almost 400% better antiradical activity than BHT, with IC50 of EBB extract being 10.7 µg/mL compared to 39.5 µg/mL for BHT. EBB exhibited higher inhibitory activity than the reference compound against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, followed by Bacillus subtilis. No inhibitory activity was observed against Aspergillus Niger. Additionally, the highest inhibitory activity was recorded against Caco-2 cells, followed by PC3 and HepG-2 cancer cell lines with IC50 values 262, 314 and 386 μg/mL, respectively. These findings establish the potential of EBB as an antioxidant, antimicrobial and antitumor agent, with possible applications as natural food supplements and natural preservatives.
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".