MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6920395422 · doi:10.60692/recc1-bzh37

Echinograciolide, a new antibacterial nor-triterpenoid and other constituents from Echinops gracilis O. Hoffm. (Asteraceae)

2022· article· en· W6920395422 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSesquiterpenes and Asteraceae Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmonella typhiAntibacterial activityKlebsiella pneumoniaeStaphylococcus aureusAntimicrobialSalmonella

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antibacterial resistance is a serious threat against humankind and the search for new therapeutics is needed. This study aims to investigate the antibacterial activity of extracts and compounds from Echinops gracilis O. Hoffm. Standard chromatographic and spectroscopic methods were used to isolate and characterize compounds (1–15) from the methanol extract. The extract, chromatographic fractions and compounds 1–3, 8, 11, 13 and 14 were subjected to in vitro antibacterial assays against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC25923, Salmonella Typhi ATCC6539, Klebsiella pneumoniae 22, and Salmonella Typhi 68, using broth micro-dilution method. As results, a new nor-triterpenoid (1) and fourteen known compounds (2–15) were characterized. The extract and fractions displayed moderate (128 ≤ MIC ≤ 512 μg/mL) and significant (MIC 64 μg/mL) antibacterial activities. Compounds 1 and 14 showed the best anti-staphylococcal and anti-salmonella activity (MIC 16 µg/mL), respectively. These results partially justified the antimicrobial uses of E. gracilis in traditional medicine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.213
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicSesquiterpenes and Asteraceae StudiesFrench-language works237,207