ArticlePharmacognosy research2017
Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry Profiling in Methanolic and Ethyl-acetate Root and Stem Extract of
Article in Pharmacognosy research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nutraceutical Potential ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Trifolium pratense ethanolic extract alters the gut microbiota composition and regulates serum lipid profile in the ovariectomized rats.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022Article
- Phytochemical composition and antioxidant properties of methanolic extracts of whole and dehulled Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) seeds.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
objectiveThis study was carried out to identify the phytoconstituents present in the methanolic and ethyl-acetate extract of root and stem of MATERIALS AND
methodsPowdered test samples were sequentially extracted with methanol and ethyl-acetate. The compounds obtained as a result of GC-MS screening were identified on the basis of their retention time, peak area and compared with that of literature available and by interpretation of mass spectra.
resultsGC-MS analysis of a methanolic extract of root detected mome-inositol (49.53%), guanosine (20.91%), and cis-vaccenic acid (9.25%). While ethyl-acetate extract of root analyzed pentadecanoic acid (17.91%), octadecanoic acid (15.01%) and cis-vaccenic acid (12.04%). Methanolic extract of stem detected mome-inositol (75.47%), pentadecanoic acid (6.04%), and 7-tetradecenal, (Z) (4.54%) while ethyl-acetate extract of stem revealed the presence of 1-heptacosanol (17.35%), hexadecanoic acid (17.17%), and octadecanal (12.64%).
conclusionThe results suggest that SUMMARY: Extraction is the most important step in the analysis of bioactive compounds present in botanical preparations. The strength of solvent plays a key role in this process, methanol as well as ethyl-acetate showed better response as far as extraction potency is concerned. Gas chromatography mass spectrometry analysis is highly reliable, and the interpretations of the results are of high-quality. This tool is in particular useful for confirming of the presence of bioactive-substances. The results suggest that
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.