MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6939489157 · doi:10.60692/nkv25-rmj40

Comparative Antioxidant, Antiproliferative and Apoptotic Effects of Ilex laurina and Ilex paraguariensis on Colon Cancer Cells

2014· article· en· W6939489157 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicHeavy Metals in Plants
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropidium iodideApoptosisAntioxidantFlow cytometryFlavonoidColorectal cancerMTT assay

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To determine and compare the antioxidant, antiproliferative and apoptotic effects of leaf infusions of Ilex laurina and Ilex paraguariensis in colon cancer cells.Methods: Antioxidant activity was determined by ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) and FRAP (Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power).Cytotoxic and antiproliferative effects were analyzed using MTT ((3-(4, 5-dimethylthiazolyl-2)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) and sulfhorodamine-B respectively.Cell death and apoptosis of human colon adenocarcinoma cells SW480 and their metastatic-derived SW620 cells, were analyzed by flow cytometry using propidium iodide and Annexin-V.Results: Although their flavonoid levels were similar, I. laurina infusion contained 2.2 and 4.4 times higher amounts of total phenolic and caffeoyl derivatives, respectively, than I. paraguariensis.FRAP and ORAC values for I. laurina infusion were 1.6 and 2.0 more active than I. paraguariensis.Both plant infusions inhibited viability and cell growth of SW480 and SW620 cells.These results may be associated to cell cycle-arrest and apoptosis because of the comparable increase of hypodiploid and annexin-V positive colon cancer cells.Conclusion: These data highlight the antioxidant and promising anticancer activities of I. laurina and Ilex paraguariensis.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicHeavy Metals in PlantsFrench-language works237,207