| Literature DB >> 20109194 |
Akiri Svc Rao1, Sareddy G Reddy, Phanithi P Babu, Attipalli R Reddy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Free radical-induced oxidative stress is the root cause for many human diseases. Naturally occurring antioxidant supplements from plants are vital to counter the oxidative damage in cells. The main objective of the present study was to characterize the antioxidant and antiproliferative potential of rice bran extracted from an important Indian rice variety, Njavara and to compare the same with two commercially available basmati rice varieties: Vasumathi, Yamini and a non medicinal variety, Jyothi.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20109194 PMCID: PMC2823621 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-10-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Total phenolic and flavonoid contents from methanolic rice bran extracts.
| Rice Variety | Total phenolic extract | Total flavonoid content |
|---|---|---|
| Vasumathi | 3.31 ± 0.3 | 1.68 ± 0.032 |
| Yamini | 4.23 ± 0.4 | 2.57 ± 0.041 |
| Jyothi | 9.44 ± 0.2 | 5.33 ± 0.072 |
| Njavara | 12.72 ± 0.6 | 8.51 ± 0.053 |
Values are of three experiments ± SE
Figure 1Total antioxidant activity. TAA carried out with different concentrations of methanolic rice bran extracts from four rice varieties. Results represent means ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 2Reducing power. RP of different concentrations of methanolic rice bran extracts from four rice varieties. Results represent means ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 3DPPH radical scavenging activity (%). DPPH scavenging activity of different concentrations of methanolic rice bran extracts from four rice varieties. Results represent means ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 4Nitric oxide scavenging activity (%). NO scavenging activity in the methanolic rice bran extracts from four rice cultivars. Results represent means ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 5Cell cytotoxicity assay. MTT assay with different concentrations of methanolic rice bran extracts from four rice cultivars. Results represent means ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Correlation of phenolic contents from the methanolic bran extracts of different rice varieties with DPPH radical scavenging, Nitric oxide (NO) scavenging, Total Antioxidant Assay (TAA), MTT assay and Reducing Power (RP).
| TPC vs DPPH scavenging | TPC vs NO scavenging | TPC vs TAA | TPC vs MTT | TPC vs RP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R value | 0.984 | 0.957 | 0.981 | -0.976 | 0.955 |
| P value | 0.00247 | 0.0105 | 0.00313 | 0.00451 | 0.0114 |
| R value | 0.968 | 0.952 | 0.953 | -0.963 | 0.950 |
| P value | 0.00689 | 0.0125 | 0.0123 | 0.00862 | 0.0132 |
| R value | 0.981 | 0.992 | 0.985 | -0.969 | 0.989 |
| P value | 0.00325 | 0.000938 | 0.00217 | 0.00655 | 0.00142 |
| R value | 0.964 | 0.987 | 0.977 | -0.961 | 0.992 |
| P value | 0.00826 | 0.00186 | 0.00427 | 0.00923 | 0.000800 |
In all the experiments number of samples (n) = 5. The pair(s) of variables with positive correlation coefficients and P values below 0.050 tend to increase together. For the pairs with negative correlation coefficients and P values below 0.050, one variable tends to decrease while the other increases. For pairs with P values greater than 0.050, there is no significant relationship between the two variables.
Regression analysis of polyphenolic content from the methanolic bran extracts of different rice varieties with DPPH radical scavenging, Nitric oxide (NO) scavenging, Total Antioxidant Assay (TAA), MTT assay and Reducing Power (RP).
| TPC vs DPPH scavenging | TPC vs NO scavenging | TPC vs TAA | TPC vs MTT assay | TPC vs RP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 value | 0.9678 | 0.9163 | 0.9624 | 0.9521 | 0.9120 |
| Slope | 6.435366 | 3.385976 | 0.0870031 | -0.0743902 | 0.0077537 |
| P value | 0.0025 | 0.0105 | 0.0031 | 0.0045 | 0.0114 |
| Growth rate | 66.18 | 61.46 | 30.93 | -20.63 | 57.52 |
| R2 value | 0.9367 | 0.9067 | 0.9074 | 0.9267 | 0.9029 |
| Slope | 4.82466 | 3.172851 | 0.0123 | -0.0579186 | 0.0123534 |
| P value | 0.0069 | 0.0125 | 0.0849 | 0.0086 | 0.0132 |
| Growth rate | 51.68 | 60.85 | 32.24 | -23.35 | 59.25 |
| R2 value | 0.9615 | 0.9831 | 0.9705 | 0.9388 | 0.9777 |
| Slope | 2.045763 | 2.002225 | 0.0472744 | -0.025 | 0.0089229 |
| P value | 0.0033 | 0.0009 | 0.0022 | 0.0066 | 0.0014 |
| Growth rate | 37.95 | 61.04 | 30.51 | -30.9 | 41.61 |
| R2 value | 0.9287 | 0.9733 | 0.9538 | 0.9233 | 0.9848 |
| Slope | 1.199922 | 1.561774 | 0.039325 | -0.0171115 | 0.0101612 |
| P value | 0.0083 | 0.0019 | 0.0043 | 0.0092 | 0.0008 |
| Growth rate | 25.28 | 46.37 | 27.86 | -38.09 | 46.91 |
R2 values are the regression coefficients by the least -- squared fits and P = probability values. In all the experiments number of observations (n) = 5.