MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162334569 · doi:10.69980/53j0zw23

Study of antimicrobial activity of zinc oxide nanoparticles and Phenol extract from Nigella Sativa L.

2023· article· W7162334569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khetam L. Hussain, Nibras Al-Ibrahemi, Heba Khlaf Yassin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicNigella sativa pharmacological applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenolNigella sativaStaphylococcus aureusAntibacterial activityAntimicrobialPhytochemicalAgar diffusion testBacteriaNanoparticle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study investigate the antibacterial activity of phenol extract from Nigella Sativa L and Zno nanoparticles toward staphylococcuse aureas and Escherichia coli. Objective: Detecting the phytochemical of plant by using reagent, separation phenol compound from alcohol extract and studding antibacterial of phenol extract and Znonanoparticl. Patients and methods: the antibacterial test detected by disc diffusion methods at concentration ( 25,50,75 and 100 mg/ml ) for phenol extract , while Zno nanoparticles at concentration (0.2 , 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 mg/ml). Results: the inhibition zone of phenol extract in concentration 25 mg/ml was 16.11 mm, 15.11 mm for S. aureus, E .coli respectively, while concentration 50 mg/ml in S. aureus, E.coli 17.44mm, 16.12mm respectively, while concentration 75mg/ml in S. aureus 19.22mm, E.coli 18.34 mm , concentration 100 mg/ml in S. aureus 21.12mm, E.coli 20.12 mm. While the inhibition zone of Zno nanoparticles was 1.23 mm, 2.23 mm against S. aureus ,E .coli respectively with concentration0.2 mg/ml, while concentration 0.3mg/ml in S. aureus 1.99mm, E.coli 3.54mm, while concentration 0.4mg/ml in S. aureus 2.76mm, E.coli 4.11 mm , concentration 0.5 mg/ml in S. aureus 3.65, E.coli 4.11 mm. Conclusion: This effect due to the ability of ZnO nanocomposite to disrupt genes for resistance to oxidative stress, and increase the ROS, which contributes to eradication of bacteria by stimulating macrophages and production of cytokines. Also disrupt the bacterial cell wall (positive, negative) by affecting the osmosis of the cell wall, so the cells treated with this compound appear wrinkled and irregular in shape. 

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.125 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicNigella sativa pharmacological applicationsFrench-language works237,207