Integrating High-Resolution Mass Spectral Data, Bioassays and Computational Models to Annotate Bioactives in Botanical Extracts: Case Study Analysis of C. asiatica Extract Associates Dicaffeoylquinic Acids with Protection against Amyloid-β Toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid screening of botanical extracts for the discovery of bioactive natural products was performed using a fractionation approach in conjunction with flow-injection high-resolution mass spectrometry for obtaining chemical fingerprints of each fraction, enabling the correlation of the relative abundance of molecular features (representing individual phytochemicals) with the read-outs of bioassays. We applied this strategy for discovering and identifying constituents of Centella asiatica (C. asiatica) that protect against Aβ cytotoxicity in vitro. C. asiatica has been associated with improving mental health and cognitive function, with potential use in Alzheimer’s disease. Human neuroblastoma MC65 cells were exposed to subfractions of an aqueous extract of C. asiatica to evaluate the protective benefit derived from these subfractions against amyloid β-cytotoxicity. The % viability score of the cells exposed to each subfraction was used in conjunction with the intensity of the molecular features in two computational models, namely Elastic Net and selectivity ratio, to determine the relationship of the peak intensity of molecular features with % viability. Finally, the correlation of mass spectral features with MC65 protection and their abundance in different sub-fractions were visualized using GNPS molecular networking. Both computational methods unequivocally identified dicaffeoylquinic acids as providing strong protection against Aβ-toxicity in MC65 cells, in agreement with the protective effects observed for these compounds in previous preclinical model studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".