MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411341647 · doi:10.1002/cbdv.202403399

Target Screening and Validation of the Antitumor Effect of Saponin Extract From <i>Holothuria leucospilota</i>

2025· article· en· W4411341647 on OpenAlexaff
Feifei Xu, Guangchun Liu, Shenglin Zhang, Ruoyan Lin, Xudong Cao, Zonghe Yu, Peng Luo, Wen Huang, Lihong Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry & Biodiversity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistrySaponinIn vitroPharmacologyElectrospray ionizationCell growthDocking (animal)Computational biologyBiochemistryMass spectrometryBiologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aimed to isolate and characterize the saponins from Holothuria leucospilota and investigate their potential antitumor effects and antitumor targets using network pharmacology and bioinformatics. The purified saponins were analyzed using electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry (ESI-MS/MS). Ten saponins were identified. The in vitro experiments demonstrated that H. leucospilota saponins exhibited significant dose-dependent inhibition on HepG2, Panc02, and UM-UC-3 cell proliferation and differentiation. In addition, through network pharmacology, bioinformatics, and molecular docking, a total of 22 key tumor targets of H. leucospilota saponins were identified. Then, the reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) results showed that the saponins from H. leucospilota can inhibit the expression of target genes AURKB, BIRC5, CHEK1, PTGS2, and MMP9, and may affect the neuroactive ligand-receptor signaling pathway, thereby suppressing tumor proliferation and migration. In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the saponin extract from H. leucospilota has potential application value in tumor therapy.

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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry & BiodiversitySame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207