4.4 Article

Comparative study of antioxidant activity and validated RP-HPTLC analysis of rutin in the leaves of different Acacia species grown in Saudi Arabia

Journal

SAUDI PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages 715-723

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2016.10.010

Keywords

Acacia species; Fabaceae; Antioxidant activity; Rutin; RPHPTLC

Funding

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University [RGP-150]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study assessed the comparative antioxidant potential of the ethanol extract (EE) of leaves of four Acacia species (Acacia salicina, AS; Acacia laeta, AL; Acacia hamulosa AH; and Acacia tortilis, AT) grown in Saudi Arabia, including RP-HPTLC quantification of antioxidant biomarker rutin. In vitro DPPH radical scavenging and beta-carotene-linoleic acid bleaching assays showed the promising antioxidant activities of Acacia extracts: ASEE (IC50: 60.39 and 324.65 mu g/ml) > ALEE (IC50: 217.06 and 423.36 mu g/ml) > ATEE (IC50: 250.13 and 747.50 mu g/ml) > AHEE (IC50: 255.83 and 417.28 mu g/ml). This was comparable to rutin tested at 500 mu g/ml. Further, a RP-HPTLC densitometric method was developed (acetonitrile: water; 6: 4; v/v) using glass-backed RP-18 silica gel F-254 plate, and scanned at UV max 254 nm. The method was validated as per the ICH guidelines. Analysis of the validated RP-HPTLC displayed an intense peak (R-f = 0.65 +/- 0.004) of rutin that was estimated (mu g/mg dry weight) to be highest in ASEE (10.42), followed by ALEE (2.67), AHEE (1.36) and ATEE (0.31). Taken together, presence of rutin strongly supported the high antioxidant property of the tested Acacia species, especially Acacia salicina. The developed RP-HPTLC method therefore, affirms its application in the quality control of commercialized herbal drugs or formulation containing rutin. (C) 2016 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available