Antibiofilm and Antimicrobial Activity of Indigofera Tirunelvelica and Basella Alba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research is to compare the anti- biofilm and antimicrobial activity of Indigofera tirunelvelica and Basella alba. This study helps us to understand the anti-biofilm activity & antimicrobial of extracts from Indigofera tirunelvelica and Basella alba against common biofilm-forming bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, Streptococcus pneumonia, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Bacillus thuringiensis and biofilmforming fungi, such as Aspergillus Niger and Canadian. For this experimentation, leaf extract (methanol, chloroform & aqueous) of Indigofera tirunelvelica and Basella alba were used. Bacteria and fungi stains are cultured in tryptic soy broth and sabouraud dextrose broth respectively. The bacterium and fungi were cultured in well plates and incubated for 24 to 48 hours. The treatment with Indigofera tirunelvelica and Basella alba varying degrees of biofilm inhibition in bacteria and fungi respectively. For klebsiella and streptococcus higher biofilm inhibition of 18mm was observed. Similar with aspergillus and Canadian 12mm was observed. Aqueous showed more inhibition activity than methanol, chloroform taken in Indigofera tirunelvelica and Basella. In basella the inhibition activity is more promising.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".