Vitamin contents and antioxidant capacity of hydroponic grown sweet basil inoculated with endophytic bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the effect of inoculated endophytic bacteria on the concentrations of vitamins E (tocopherols), K (phylloquinone), B1 (thiamine), B2 (riboflavin), C (ascorbic acid) and the peroxyl radical scavenging capacity of hydroponically grown sweet basil. Endophytic strains were all isolated from hydrocarbon-stressed herbaceous plants or from basil showing superior growth. Plants inoculated with the endophytes displayed up to 40% increase (p < 0.05) in the concentration of the reduced form of vitamin C relative to control [0.56 mg/g fresh weight (FW)] which indicated less oxidative stress in the presence of endophytes. In the case of γ-tocopherol, the highest content [25.8 μg/g of fresh weight (FW)] in inoculated basils was significantly higher compared to control plants (18.5 ± 1.2 μg/g FW) (p < 0.05). Antioxidant activity (ROO∙ radicals scavenging) was as high as 94 ± 4 μM Trolox equivalents (TE)/g FW vs. 53 ± 5 μM TE/g FW for the control basil. Concentrations of vitamins C, B1, and B2 were not affected by most strains. The results showed that endophytic bacteria have the capacity to alter free radical quenching capacity and vitamin concentrations in basil plants and, that their effect is strain and nutrient dependent.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".