Comparison of Nutritional and Functional Components and Total Antioxidant Capacity of Different <i>Momordica charantia</i> Varieties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The differences of nutrient content, functional component content and total antioxidant capacity of 25 different varieties (lines) of Momordica charantia were compared, and the correlation between functional components and the total antioxidant capacity of Momordica charantia was analyzed, so as to provide the basis for the breeding of fresh and processed Momordica charantia varieties and the development of functional food of Momordica charantia . The results showed that the contents of vitamin C, soluble protein, cellulose, amino acid and total acid in pulp of different varieties (lines) were significantly different, the average values were 85.71 μg/g, 7.98 mg/g, 319.04 mg/g, 1.45 mg/g, 0.41%, and the coefficient of variation were 28.47%, 29.07%, 11.05%, 43.45% and 12.20%, respectively. There were significant differences in the contents of total saponins, polysaccharides, flavonoids and total phenols in different varieties (lines), with the average values of 5.02 µg/g, 38.36 mg/g, 2.64 mg/g and 7.68 mg/g, respectively. The number of variation lines was 45.62%, 25.47%, 21.97% and 18.49%, respectively. The average antioxidant capacity of DPPH (1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazy), ABTS +· (2,2’-azinobis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid diammonium salt) and FRAP (Ferric reducing/antioxidant power) were 1.73 μmol Trolox/g, 67.38 μmol Trolox/g and 11.62 μmol Trolox/g, respectively, and the variation coefficients were 19.65%, 17.25% and 31.50%, respectively. There was a significant correlation between total phenol content and total antioxidant capacity of Momordica charantia . Over all, there were significant genotypic differences in the contents of nutrients, functional components and antioxidant value in the pulp of 25 varieties (lines), and the total phenol content in the pulp was the main material basis for the antioxidant activity of Momordica charantia . In the breeding and cultivation of new bitter gourd varieties, the corresponding varieties should be selected according to different uses, which is conducive to the development of the advantages and commercial value of the varieties.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".