4.7 Article

In Vitro Anti-Epstein Barr Virus Activity of Olea europaea L. Leaf Extracts

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10112445

关键词

Olea europaea leaves; antivirals; antioxidant; plants bioactive compounds

资金

  1. University of Messina Research & Mobility 2016 Project [RES_AND_MOB_2016_Sciortino]
  2. University of Messina FFABR 2019 Project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research demonstrates that olive extracts derived from Olea europaea L. var. sativa have significant antioxidant activity, capable of effectively scavenging free radicals and playing a positive role in preventing and treating various diseases.
Olea europaea L. var. sativa (OESA) preparations are widely used in traditional medicine in the Mediterranean region to prevent and treat different diseases. In this research, olive extracts derived from the leaves of the OESA tree have been screened for antioxidant activity by two methods: the DPPH free radical scavenging assay (DPPH) and the Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay. The DPPH assay showed that OESA possesses a stronger antioxidant activity (84%) at 1 mg/mL while the FRAP method showed a strong metal ion chelating activity (90%) at 1 mg/mL. The low IC50 values, obtained by two different methods, implies that OESA has a noticeable effect on scavenging free radicals comparable to standards. During EBV infection, the free radicals increased triggering lipid oxidation. Therefore, the monitoring of the secondary lipid peroxidation products was done by measuring malonaldehyde (MDA) and conjugated dienes (DC). The simultaneous treatment of Raji cells with OESA and TPA, as an inductorof the lytic cycle, generated a significant decrease in MDA levels and DC (p < 0.05). Besides, Raji cells simultaneously exposed to TPA and OESA exhibited a percentage of EBV-positive fluorescence cells lower than TPA treated cells (**** p < 0.0001). This suggests that OESA treatment has a protective effect against EBV lytic cycle induction.

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

4.7
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