Anticancer Activity of Combretum fragrans F. Hoffm on Glioblastoma and Prostate Cancer Cell Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence has been growing in an alarming rate worldwide and new therapeutics are needed, particularly for intractable and chemoresistant cases. We evaluated the cytotoxic effects of Combretum fragrans F. Hoffm (Combretaceae) on glioblastoma (U87MG and C6) and prostate (PC-3) cancer cell lines. METHODS: The cytotoxic effect of the methanolic extract of the stem bark of Combretum fragrans was assessed using XTT (2,3-bis (2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-5-[(phenylamino) carbonyl]-2H-tetrazolium hydroxide) test. Expressions of Akt and ERK1/2 were determined using Western blot technique, while Caspase-3/7 kits were used to evaluate caspase-3/7 activity. RESULTS: C. fragrans extract inhibited the proliferation of U87 (IC50 = 20.13 µg/mL), C6 (IC50 = 12.17 µg/mL), and PC-3 (IC50 = 11.50 µg/mL) cells. Treatment with the extract resulted in lower levels (p < 0.001) of phospho-ERK1/2 and phospho-Akt in U87 cells, and instead, higher levels of phospho-ERK1/2 (p < 0.001) in C6 and PC-3 cells. An increase in caspase-3/7 activity was observed, mainly after 24 hours of treatment, indicating the activation of apoptotic processes. CONCLUSION: Altogether, these results suggest that C. fragrans have potent anticancer properties. This plant should be further investigated for developing new 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".