MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GC–MS Based Metabolites Profiling, In Vitro Antioxidant, Antibacterial, and Anti-Cancer Properties of Different Solvent Extracts from Leaves, Stems, Roots, and Flowers of <em>Micromeria fruticosa</em> (Lamiaceae)

2022· preprint· en· W4223999684 on OpenAlexaff
Ibrahim M. Abu‐Reidah, Mohamed Al-Nuri, Anwar Afifi, Ghadeer Omar, Ghaleb Adwan, Ismail Warad

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioactive natural compounds
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersDivision of ChemistryUNICEF
KeywordsAntimicrobialChemistryDPPHAntioxidantMenthoneAntibacterial activityPulegoneFood scienceStaphylococcus aureusTraditional medicineBacteriaBiologyBiochemistryEssential oilOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assesses the secondary metabolites, minerals, antimicrobial, antioxidant, and anticancer properties of Micromeria fruticosa plant different botanical parts (leaf, stem, root, flower) extracted with various solvents. The plant samples were sequentially obtained using different solvents (n-hexane, ethanol and water) through steeping. Then, each of the extracts was further analyzed by using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Moreover, the extracts were bio-assayed to test their antioxidant, antibacterial, and anti-cancer activities. Quali-quantitative analysis of M. fruticosa crude extracts revealed the occurrence of 27 secondary metabolites were identified including mainly monoterpenes, sesquterpenes, and fatty acids, with varying quantities. Some of the major bioactive compounds included, Menthone (5.42-30.05%), Oleamide (3.40-32.20%), Pulegone (10.66-64.1%), and Menthol (3.61-100.0%), which were detected mostly in all plant parts with significant quantities. Several antioxidant minerals, mainly, Fe, Zn, and Mn, were detected with the highest amounts in the Micromeria water extracts. Results from antimicrobial assays showed that the water extract of leaves exhibited the highest DPPH scavenging activity (89.73%) followed by the water extract of flowers (80.07%) at a concentration of 100 μg/mL. The water extract of stems showed greater antimicrobial activity against all the tested gram negative and positive bacteria (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Shigella sonnie). The leaves ethanolic and stem aqueous extracts had a strong antimicrobial activity against E. coli. and C. albicans. Flower aqueous extract demonstrated the highest cytostatic effect on the colon cell line by reducing viability up to 30.4%, followed by the leaf ethanol extract with 38.6% cell viability reduction at 1000 µg/mL. In conclusion, extraction solvents influenced the recovery of phytocompounds and the highest pharmacological activities of the different extracts could be correlated to the presence of additional bioactive compounds. Our results suggest that M. fruticosa plant is a promising source of natural products with antioxidant, anti-microbial and anti-cancer properties for potential nutraceutical, therapeutic, and functional food applications. , , , , , ,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicBioactive natural compoundsFrench-language works237,207