Chemical Composition, Antioxidant Properties, Acute Toxicity, and Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Aqueous Extract of Roots of <i>Ferula communis</i> L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The chemical constituent's antioxidant potential and acute toxicity of aqueous extracts of roots of Ferula communis L. were determined. UHPLC–MS/MS was used to identify compounds in the extract. Antioxidant properties were investigated in vitro. Acute toxicity was examined during oral dosing of Swiss albino mice with 200, 300, or 400 mg/Kg. The use of molecular docking determined drug similarity. The main constituents in the root extract of F. communis were luteolin (21.48%), vanillic acid (10.98%), and kaempferol (24.57%). Extracts of F. communis contained flavonoids and polyphenols (0.820 ± 0.031 mg equiv Q/mg and 0.194 ± 0.04 mg equiv AG/mg, respectively). The aqueous root extract exhibited significant antioxidative capacity based on the DPPH (2,2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl) method with an IC 50 = 0.820 ± 0.031 mg/mL) or ABTS (2,2′‐azinobis‐(3‐ethylbenzthiazolin‐6‐sulfonic acid) with an IC 50 = 15.65 ± 1.21 mg/mL, and molybdenum (474 ± 6 mg equiv Vit C/mg). This result was consistent with results of docking analysis that showed that F. communis also had stable intermolecular interactions, expected to have a potent antioxidant effect. Extracts of roots caused no toxicity to mice during acute exposures. Results of the docking study and ADMET pharmacokinetic predictions demonstrated the safety of the primary plant compounds under investigation, specifically luteolin (C8).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".