4.6 Article

Evaluation of the Anticancer Potential of Crude, Irradiated Cerastes cerastes Snake Venom and Propolis Ethanolic Extract & Related Biological Alterations

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 26, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26227057

关键词

PEE; IRR V; A549; PC3; apoptotic; IC50; CV; P53; Casp-3; Bcl-2; ROS; MDA; and GR

资金

  1. King Khalid University [RGP 2/66/42]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that crude venom and gamma irradiated Certastes cerastes venom exhibited higher toxicity against lung and prostate cancer cells, while propolis ethanolic extract showed lower toxicity. These substances affected the cell cycle and expression of apoptotic genes in lung and prostate cancer cells, leading to DNA accumulation and oxidative stress response.
We aimed to evaluate the anticancer potential of crude venom (CV), gamma irradiated Certastes cerastes venom (IRRV), and propolis ethanolic extract (PEE). IRRV showed a higher toxicity than CV, while CV-PEE showed higher toxicity than IRRV and CV against lung [A549] and prostate [PC3] cancer cells. Toxicity to [A549] and [PC3] cells was concentration and cell type dependent. In comparison to controls, apoptotic genes showed a significant upregulation of P53 and Casp-3 and a downregulation of Bcl-2. Also, induced elevated DNA accumulation in the [S] phase post PC3 cell treatment with IRRV and CV, as well as a significant DNA accumulation at G2/M phase after IRRV treatment of A549 cells. In contrast, PC3 cells showed a negligible cellular DNA accumulation after PEE treatment. Glutathione reductase [GR] was reduced in case of PC3 and A549 cell treated with IRRV, CV, and PEE compared with its values in untreated cell control. The Malondialdehyde [MDA] values in both cells recorded a significant elevation post IRRV treatment compared to the rest of the treatment regimen and untreated cell control. Similarly, IRRV and CV-PEE mix showed obviously higher reactive oxygen species [ROS] values than PC3 and A549 cell treatments with CV and PEE.

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