4.7 Article

Cytotoxicity of the Roots of Trillium govanianum Against Breast (MCF7), Liver (HepG2), Lung (A549) and Urinary Bladder (EJ138) Carcinoma Cells

期刊

PHYTOTHERAPY RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 1716-1720

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ptr.5672

关键词

Trillium govanianum; Trilliaceae; cancer; cytotoxicity; LC-MS; MTT; saponin; sapogenin

资金

  1. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan under the scheme of International Research Support Initiative Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trillium govanianum Wall. (Melanthiaceae alt. Trilliaceae), commonly known as nag chhatri' or teen patra', is a native species of the Himalayas. It is used in various traditional medicines containing both steroids and sex hormones. In folk medicine, the rhizomes of T.govanianum are used to treat boils, dysentery, inflammation, menstrual and sexual disorders, as an antiseptic and in wound healing. With the only exception of the recent report on the isolation of a new steroidal saponin, govanoside A, together with three known steroidal compounds with antifungal property from this plant, there has been no systematic pharmacological and phytochemical work performed on T.govanianum. This paper reports, for the first time, on the cytotoxicity of the methanol extract of the roots of T.govanianum and its solid-phase extraction (SPE) fractions against four human carcinoma cell lines: breast (MCF7), liver (HEPG2), lung (A549) and urinary bladder (EJ138), using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazoliumbromide cytotoxicity assay and liquid chromatography and electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry analysis of the SPE fractions. The methanol extract and all SPE fractions exhibited considerable levels of cytotoxicity against all cell lines, with the IC50 values ranging between 5 and 16 mu g/mL. Like other Trillium species, presence of saponins and sapogenins in the SPE fractions was evident in the liquid chromatography mass spectrometry data. Copyright (c) 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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