Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33126621›Full record

ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2020

The Influence of Hemp Extract in Combination with Ginger on the Metabolic Activity of Metastatic Cells and Microorganisms.

Taja Žitek, Maja Leitgeb, Andrej Golle, Barbara Dariš, Željko Knez, Maša Knez Hrnčič

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Ellagitannin Content in Extracts of the Chestnut WoodMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Extraction of Active Compounds from Mixtures of Hemp (Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Taja ŽitekLaboratory for Separation Processes and Product Design, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, University of Maribor, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia.
Maja LeitgebLaboratory for Separation Processes and Product Design, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, University of Maribor, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0001-9303-686X
Andrej GolleNational Laboratory for Health, Environment and Food, Prvomajska ulica 1, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia.
Barbara DarišFaculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Taborska 8, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia.
Željko KnezLaboratory for Separation Processes and Product Design, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, University of Maribor, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0001-8760-607X
Maša Knez HrnčičLaboratory for Separation Processes and Product Design, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, University of Maribor, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia.
University of Maribor · SINational Laboratory of Health, Environment and Food · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study presents an investigation of the anticancer and antimicrobial ability of a combination of ginger and cannabis extracts in different ratios (1:1, 7:3 and 3:7). Extracts were obtained using various methods (Soxhlet extractions, cold macerations, ultrasonic extractions and supercritical fluid extractions). The antioxidant activity and the presence of total phenols were measured in the extracts, and the effect of the application extracts in various concentrations (c = 50, 20, 10, 5, 1, 0.1, 0.01 mg/mL) on cells was investigated. Higher values of antioxidants were measured at the ratio where ginger was predominant, which is reflected in a higher concentration of total phenols. Depending on the polyphenol content, the extracts were most effective when prepared supercritically and ultrasonically. However, with respect to cell response, the ratio was shown to have no effect on inhibiting cancer cell division. The minimum concentration required to inhibit cancer cell growth was found to be 1 mg/mL. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis also confirmed the effectiveness of ultrasonic and supercritical fluid extraction, as their extracts reached higher cannabinoid contents. In both extractions, the cannabidiol (CBD) content was above 30% and the cannabidiolic acid (CBDA) content was above 45%. In the case of ultrasonic extraction, a higher quantity of cannabigerol (CBG) (5.75 ± 0.18) was detected, and in the case of supercritical fluid extraction, higher cannabichromene (CBC) (5.48 ± 0.13) content was detected, when compared to other extraction methods. The antimicrobial potential of extracts prepared with ultrasonic and supercritical extractions on three microorganisms (

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsAntineoplastic AgentsCandida albicansCannabisCell Line, TumorEscherichia coliHumansNeoplasm MetastasisPlant ExtractsStaphylococcus aureusZingiber officinaleAnti-Infective AgentsAntineoplastic AgentsPlant ExtractsantioxidantCandida albicansEscherichia coligingerhempmetastatic melanoma cells WM-266-4Staphylococcus aureustotal phenol

Identifiers

PMID33126621
PMCPMC7662229
OpenAlexW3097067210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.