MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385476856 · doi:10.1002/jssc.202300172

High‐speed counter‐current chromatography assisted preparative isolation of phenolic compounds from the flowers of <i>Chrysanthemum morifolium</i> cv. Fubaiju

2023· article· en· W4385476856 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaowei Dong, Hongping Huang, Rong Wang, Yahui Mi, Yu‐Qing Pan, Wei Shen, Jiamin Cui, Xiaolong Hu, Xuexiang Cheng, Xinhong Shi, Hao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Separation Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChromatography in Natural Products
Canadian institutionsEmergent BioSolutions (Canada)
FundersGuangdong Provincial Pearl River Talents ProgramChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsChrysanthemum morifoliumChlorogenic acidChemistryQuinic acidChromatographyVanillic acidAcetic acidCaffeic acidLuteolinCountercurrent chromatographyPhenolic acidFlavonoidHigh-performance liquid chromatographyOrganic chemistryBotanyAntioxidant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chrysanthemum morifolium cv. Fubaiju is rich in phenolic compounds with various benefits such as anti‐inflammatory, antioxidant, and cardiovascular protection. In this study, 12 phenolic compounds, including five flavonoid glycosides and seven quinic acid derivatives, were successfully separated from the flowers of Chrysanthemum morifolium cv. Fubaiju by high‐speed counter‐current chromatography and preparative high‐performance liquid chromatography. Ethyl acetate‐n‐butanol–acetonitrile–water–acetic acid (5:0.5:2.5:5:0.25, v/v/v/v/v) was selected as solvent system to separate six fractions from the flowers of Chrysanthemum morifolium cv. Fubaiju, and 20% aqueous acetonitrile (containing 0.1% formic acid) was chosen to be the elution solvent in preparative high‐performance liquid chromatography for purifying the fractions above. Luteolin‐7‐O‐β‐D‐glucoside (1), luteolin‐7‐O‐β‐D‐glucuronide (2), apigenin‐7‐O‐β‐D‐glucoside (3), luteolin‐7‐O‐β‐D‐rutinoside (4), diosmetin‐7‐O‐β‐D‐glucoside (5), chlorogenic acid (6), 1,5‐dicaffeoylquinic acid (7), 1,4‐dicaffeoylquinic acid (8), 3,4‐dicaffeoylquinic acid (9), 3,4‐dicaffeoyl‐epi‐quinic acid (10), 3,5‐dicaffeoylquinic acid (11), and 4,5‐dicaffeoylquinic acid (12) were isolated with purities all above 95%, respectively. In addition, all isolates were evaluated for their protective effects on H2O2‐induced oxidative damage in adult retinal pigment epithelial cells.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Separation ScienceSame topicChromatography in Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207