| Literature DB >> 21060296 |
Lai Teng Ling1, Uma D Palanisamy, Hwee Ming Cheng.
Abstract
The antioxidant activity of several Malaysian plant extracts was analyzed simultaneously with their pro-oxidant capacity. This ratio represents an index (ProAntidex) of the net free radical scavenging ability of whole plant extracts. We observed that ethanolic extracts of Nephelium lappaceum peel, Fragaria x ananassa leaf, Lawsonia inermis leaf, Syzygium aqueum leaf and grape seed had a lower Pro-Antidex than the commercially available Emblica™ extract which is an antioxidant agent with very low pro-oxidant activity. Among the aqueous extracts, Lawsonia inermis leaf, Nephelium mutobile leaf and grape seed had lower pro-oxidant activity compared to the Emblica™ extract. Among these extracts, aqueous extract of Nephelium mutobile leaf had a very low index of 0.05 compared to 0.69 for Emblica™. Most of the extracts had a far lower ProAntidex compared to the Vitamin C. The index enables us to identify extracts with high net free radical scavenging activity potential. The ProAntidex is beneficial as a screening parameter to the food industries and healthcare.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21060296 PMCID: PMC6259429 DOI: 10.3390/molecules15117884
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
DPPH scavenging activity, Pro-oxidant activity and ProAntidex in ethanolic extracts of selected Malaysian plants and standard. ProAntidex was devised using the ratio of pro-oxidant activities to the IC50 DPPH scavenging activity. All values represent means ± SD, n = 3.
| Ethanolic Extract | Plant Part | DPPH (IC50, mg/mL) | Pro-oxidanta(mg/mL) | Pro-Antidex |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| leaf | 0.74 ± 0.46 | 0.50 ± 0.02 | 0.91 ± 0.58 |
|
| leaf | 0.17 ± 0.02 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 1.32 ± 0.29 |
|
| peel | 0.11 ± 0.02 | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 1.62 ± 0.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| leaf | 0.18 ± 0.08 | 0.20 ± 0.03 | 1.27 ± 0.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| leaf | 0.33 ± 0.03 | 0.76 ± 0.42 | 2.37 ± 1.40 |
|
| leaf | 0.17 ± 0.12 | 0.11 ± 0.03 | 0.83 ± 0.44 |
|
| bark | 0.10 ± 0.04 | 0.08 ± 0.03 | 0.94 ± 0.66 |
|
| leaf | 0.30 ± 0.21 | 0.75 ± 0.51 | 3.82 ± 4.24 |
|
| leaf | 0.24 ± 0.03 | 0.18 ± 0.06 | 0.76 ± 0.28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
a The pro-oxidant activities were calculated by linear regression of plots where x-axis represented the various concentrations (0.1 mg/mL–6 mg/mL) of test plant extracts while the y-axis represented the absorbance of the test plant extracts.
DPPH scavenging activity, pro-oxidant and ProAntidex in aqueous extracts of selected Malaysian plants and standards. ProAntidex was devised using the ratio of pro-oxidant activities to the IC50 DPPH scavenging activity. All values represent means ± SD, n = 3. **Designates a significance difference from EmblicaTM, p < 0.01.
| Aqueous Extract | Plant Part | DPPH (IC50, mg/mL) | Pro-oxidanta (mg/mL) | Pro-Antidex |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| leaf | 0.96 ± 0.14 | 1.13 ± 0.01 | 1.20 ± 0.18 |
|
| leaf | 0.49 ± 0.39 | 1.03 ± 0.88 | 2.03 ± 1.38 |
|
| peel | 1.66 ± 2.4 | 3.04 ± 0.08 | 7.26±6.12** |
|
|
| 0.54 ± 0.15 | 0.55 ± 0.37 | 1.08 ± 0.65 |
|
| leaf | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.42 ± 0.33 | 1.89 ± 1.43 |
|
|
| 0.37 ± 0.07 | 0.58 ± 0.003 | 1.60 ± 0.29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.33 ± 0.07 | 0.26 ± 0.09 | 0.88 ± 0.51 |
|
| leaf | 0.67 ± 0.02 | >2 | 2.37±1.40 |
|
| leaf | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 1.14 ± 0.45 |
|
| bark | 0.20 ± 0.12 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 1.48 ± 0.88 |
|
| leaf | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.20 ± 0.001 | 0.93 ± 0.05 |
|
| leaf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NA | 0.28 ± 0.04 | 0.23 ± 0.07 | 0.82 ± 0.28 |
| NA | 0.31 ± 0.07 | 0.27 ± 0.12 | 0.69 ± 0.18 | |
|
| NA | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.03 ± 0.35 | 4.10 ± 3.36 |
a The pro-oxidant activities were calculated by linear regression of plots where x-axis represented the various concentrations (0.1 mg/mL–6 mg/mL) of test plant extracts while the y-axis represented the absorbance of the test plant extracts.
Figure 1Pro-oxidant activity of the standards used in this study. The pro-oxidant assay was done by measuring reducing power on Fe3+ in the Fenton reaction. Vitis vinifera seed (grape seed), green tea, EmblicaTM and Vitamin C are positive controls that were used in this study for comparisons. All values represent means ± SD, n = 3.
Figure 2Correlation between ProAntidex and DPPH scavenging activity of ethanolic extracts that we used in this study.
Figure 3Correlation between ProAntidex and DPPH scavenging activity of aqueous extracts that we used in this study.