Abstract
Most studies conducted to test the allelopathic activity of plant parts have made use of water as solvent. However, the presence of polar, water-soluble substances, such as proteins and carbohydrates, tends to hamper the purification of active compounds. In this study, we present a simple purification procedure that separates the active fraction of the extract from the undesirable substances, thus facilitating the search for active molecules through standard chromatographic methods. Aqueous leaf extracts of three Cerrado species (Caryocar brasiliense, Qualea parviflora and Eugenia dysenterica) were prepared at 5% concentration (w/v) and stored at 4ºC (crude extracts). After 24 h, these solutions were filtered and freeze-dried. The powder obtained was dissolved in methanol, filtered again, evaporated and dissolved in water for bioassays (purified extracts). For the bioassays, seedlings of Sesamum indicum were grown for five days in aqueous solutions prepared from crude and purified extracts at concentrations ranging from 0.1% to 1.0% (w/v). Seedling growth in distilled water was set as a control. In comparison with the control, we found that test solutions prepared from both crude and purified extracts significantly inhibited sesame seedling growth. However, solutions prepared from purified extracts were two to ten times more inhibitory to seedling growth than were those prepared from crude extracts. The inhibition of root growth ranged from 35% to 77%, depending on the plant species, at a concentration as low as 0.1%. Roots were more affected than were shoots. The effects of purified extracts on seedling morphology were similar to those observed when crude extracts were employed, indicating that the procedure of purification of crude extracts did not interfere with the mode of action of the active substances
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 5
Claim · model-written summary
Crude and purified extracts inhibited sesame seedling growth.
- Taxon
- sesame
Sesamum indicume0 - Treatment
- both crude and purified extractse0
- Outcome
- seedling growthe0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In comparison with the control, we found that test solutions prepared from both crude and purified extracts significantly inhibited sesame seedling growth.”
Claim · model-written summary
Purified extracts were two to ten times more inhibitory than crude extracts.
- Treatment
- purified extractse0
- Outcome
- seedling growthe0
- Direction
- more inhibitorye0
- Value
- two to ten timese0
- Comparator
- crude extractse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“solutions prepared from purified extracts were two to ten times more inhibitory to seedling growth than were those prepared from crude extracts.”
Claim · model-written summary
Root growth inhibition ranged from 35% to 77% at 0.1% concentration.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“The inhibition of root growth ranged from 35% to 77%, depending on the plant species, at a concentration as low as 0.1%.”
Claim · model-written summary
Roots were more affected than shoots.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Roots were more affected than were shoots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Purified extracts produced similar seedling morphology effects to crude extracts.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The effects of purified extracts on seedling morphology were similar to those observed when crude extracts were employed”
The same questions in other papers
botanical · growth · Sesamum indicum (sesame)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.