MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405073016 · doi:10.1080/19476337.2024.2427242

Anti-proliferating and antioxidant properties of <i>Eriobotrya japonica</i> fruit in human breast cancer cells combined with <i>in silico</i> study

2024· article· en· W4405073016 on OpenAlexaff
Astri Arnamalia, Elvan Wiyarta, Reggie Surya, Darmawan Alisaputra, Nurpudji Astuti Taslim, Happy Kurnia Permatasari, Trina Ekawati Tallei, Rosy Iara Maciel de Azambuja Ribeiro, Apollinaire Tsopmo, Bonglee Kim, Fahrul Nurkolis, Rony Abdi Syahputra

Bibliographic record

VenueCyTA - Journal of Food · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEriobotryaIn silicoJaponicaHuman breastAntioxidantCancerBreast cancerTraditional medicineBotanyBiologyMedicineBiochemistryGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to identify compounds in the fruits of the medicinal Eriobotrya japonica L, determine anti-apoptotic properties in human breast cancer cells and predict the mechanism via docking and bioinformatic analyses. HPLC-ESI-HRMS/MS metabolite profiling of E. japonica ethanolic extract allowed the identification of eight compounds. Subsequent network pharmacology and molecular docking simulations targeting key cancer-related proteins showed excellent predictive activity (Pa > 0.71) for seven of the compounds. Two of the compounds hyperoxide (C6) and afzelin (C8) showed strong affinities with inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and beta-1 adrenergic receptor-β (ADRB1) with ΔG of −11.5 and −12.1, respectively. Radical scavenging data showed compound C8 (EC50 89.1 µg/mL, ABTS+•; 96.1 µg/mL, DPPH) was the most active in relation to other compounds and the extract (EC50 115.5 µg/mL, ABTS+•; 101.5 µg/mL, DPPH). The cytotoxicity (LD50) was 96.1–178.9 µg/mL) for cancerous MCF-7 cells compared to 1,105-2,066 µg/mL for normal MCF-10A 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCyTA - Journal of FoodSame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207