CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS AND ANTIBACTERIAL ACTIVITY OF THREE TYPES OF AMAZONIAN Melipona spp. GEOPROPOLIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work describes the first chemical study on the metabolic profile of three geopropolis samples from Melipona fulva, M. compressipes, and M. paraensis collected in the Amazonian region. The samples were submitted to solvent extractions. The silylated hexane extracts were submitted to GC-MS analysis and tentatively identified mainly the presence of triterpenes, steroids, fatty acids, and alcohols. The chemical profile of M. fulva of and M. compressipes geopropolis are similar. However, cholesterol, triacontanol, and palmitic acid are the main compounds in M. fulva; in M. compressipes, palmitic acid, linoleic acid, and oleic acid are predominant. The chemical profile of the M. paraensis sample is entirely different once more than 60% of the extract comprises lupenone and triacontanol. The CHCl3 soluble fraction of the MeOH extract of the M. paraensis geopropolis was submitted to chromatographic techniques, and it afforded cycloartenol, 24-methylene-cycloartenol, lupeol, α- and β-amirins, and 7-O-methylaromadendrin. The MeOH extract of this sample presents antimicrobial activities against strains of Streptococcus mutans, S. sobrinus, and S. aureus (MIC of 15.6-62.5 µg mL-1 and MBC of 62.5-1000 µg mL-1). The M. fulva and M. compressipes geopropolis were not active in this test.
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".