4.6 Article

Leaf extracts from Teucrium ramosissimum protect against DNA damage in human lymphoblast cell K562 and enhance antioxidant, antigenotoxic and antiproliferative activity

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.etap.2016.04.006

关键词

Antigenotoxic activity; Antioxidant capacity; Cell proliferation; Comet assay. Teucrium ramosissimum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The in vitro antioxidant, antigenotoxic and antiproliferative activities of Teucrium ramosissimum extracts were investigated. The antioxidant activities of the tested extracts were evaluated through three chemical assays: The Cupric reducing antioxidant capacity, the reducing power and the ferric reducing antioxidant power. TR1 fraction from methanol extract showed the best antioxidant activity evaluated by the CUPRAC, RP and FRAP assays with TEAC values of 4.04, 1.77 and 1.48 mu M respectively compared to control. Yet, TR2 fraction exhibited the lowest antioxidant effect with a TEAC values of 1.97, 0.408 and 0.35 mu M respectively. All the tested extracts were also found to be effective in protecting plasmid DNA against the strand breakage induced by hydroxyl radicals. Furthermore, the effects of T. ramosissimum extracts on cell proliferation were also examined. The cytotoxic study revealed that methanol extract significantly inhibited the proliferation of K562 cells (IC50 = 150 mu g/mL). The antigenotoxic properties of these extracts were investigated by assessing the induction and inhibition of the genotoxicity induced by the direct-acting mutagen, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), using an eukaryotic system; the Comet assay. The results showed that all the extracts inhibited the genotoxicity induced by H2O2 and particularly TR2 fraction (96.99%) and methanol extract (96.64%). The present study has demonstrated that T. ramosissimum extract possess potent antioxidant, antiproliferative and antigenotoxic activities, which could be derived from compounds such as flavonoids and polyphenols. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据