ArticlePloS one2026
Comparison of non-thermally extracted polysaccharides from fresh wolfberry with conventionally extracted polysaccharides from dried wolfberry.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lycium barbarum polysaccharides (LBPs) are important bioactive constituents of wolfberry, but polysaccharides prepared directly from fresh wolfberry under non-thermal conditions remain insufficiently characterized. This study developed a non-thermal extraction strategy to obtain polysaccharides from fresh wolfberry (FLBPs) and compared them with polysaccharides conventionally extracted from dried wolfberry (DLBPs). By adjusting the relative density of pulp to 1.06 and applying an 85% alcohol precipitation, FLBPs were successfully prepared without heating. FLBPs and DLBPs showed comparable total carbohydrate and protein contents, whereas DLBPs contained significantly more bound phenolics (p < 0.001). The two crude polysaccharides differed in molecular-weight distribution, monosaccharide composition, morphology, Congo red response, particle size, zeta potential, apparent viscosity, and cellular bioactivities. Compared with DLBPs, FLBPs displayed lower bound phenolic content, a narrower molecular weight distribution, stronger cytoprotective activity against H2O2-induced oxidative stress in HepG2 cells, and less induction of NO release in RAW264.7 macrophages. These findings indicate that non-thermally extracted FLBPs can serve as a fresh-material reference for evaluating preparation-associated differences in wolfberry polysaccharides and provide clues for future studies on the roles of drying, extraction, and associated components in shaping the quality of LBPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.