| Literature DB >> 25237348 |
Shivraj Hariram Nile1, Se Won Park1.
Abstract
The HPTLC analysis, antioxidant, and antigout activity of Asparagus racemosus, Withania somnifera, Vitex negundo, Plumbago zeylanica, Butea monosperma and Tephrosia purpurea extracts were investigated. The chemical fingerprinting were carried out by high performance thin layer chromatography (HPTLC), antioxidant activity by ABTS, DPPH, FRAP radical scavenging assays, and antiogout activity by cow milk xanthine oxidase. The HPTLC fingerprint qualitatively revealed predominant amount of flavonoids. The TEAC values ranged from 45.80 to 140 µM trolox/100 g dry weight for ABTS, from 85 to 430 µM trolox/ 100 g dw DPPH, and 185 to 560 µM trolox/100 g dw for FRAP respectively. Plants used in this study was found to inhibit the toxicity, as seen from the decreased LPO and increased GSH, SOD and CAT levels. The total phenolic and flavonoid content ranged from 10.21 to 28.17 and 5.80 to 10.1 mg of gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/100 gdw respectively. The plant extracts demonstrated significant xanthine oxidase inhibitory activity at 100 g/mL and revealed an inhibition greater than 50 % and IC50 values below the standard. This effect was almost similar to the activity of allopurinol (Standard drug) against xanthine oxidase (90.2 ± 0.4 %). These plant root extract will be subjected for further extensive studies to isolate and identify their active constituents which are useful for against inflammation and gout.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; Flavonoids; HPTLC; Medicinal plants; Xanthine oxidase
Year: 2014 PMID: 25237348 PMCID: PMC4157028
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Percent yield of plant extract after extraction (mg mL-1)[a)]
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 |
|
| 4.0 ± 0.28 |
| P2 |
|
| 6.2 ± 0.18 |
| P3 |
|
| 8.1± 0.32 |
| P4 |
|
| 5.6± 0.58 |
| P5 |
|
| 7.2 ± 0.64 |
| P6 |
|
| 6.5± 0.42 |
)mean ± SD (n=3)
Figure 1Chromatograms obtained from separation of plant extracts of P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 and standards Q: quercetin, R: rutin, C: Luteolin and V: vitexin (sample codes are explained in Table 1) Visualization was under UV light of wavelength 254 nm
Figure 2Chromatograms obtained from separation of plant extracts of P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 and standards Q: quercetin, R: rutin, C: Luteolin and V: vitexin (sample codes are explained in Table 1) Visualization was under UV light of wavelength 366 nm
In - vitro antioxidant capacity, total phenolic and flavonoid content in selected planta.
| Scientific | Total phenolic content[ | Total flavonoid content[ | TEAC ( µM trolox/100 g dw) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABTS | DPPH | FRAP | |||
|
| 28.17 ± 0.87 | 10.10 ± 2.14 | 55.80 ± 1.23 | 180 ± 2.56 | 380 ± 4.85 |
|
| 24.02 ± 0.67 | 09.12 ± 4.34 | 50.70 ± 2.05 | 360 ± 5.46 | 560 ± 5.12 |
|
| 12.45 ± 0.65 | 06.12 ± 3.12 | 140.00 ± 3.01 | 253 ± 3.56 | 280 ± 2.10 |
|
| 10.21 ± 0.42 | 05.80 ± 1.23 | 70.50 ± 2.09 | 430 ± 5.22 | 350 ± 4.34 |
|
| 24.07 ± 3.20 | 08.24 ± 1.45 | 57.80 ± 1.23 | 085 ± 0.56 | 260 ± 3.80 |
|
| 18.02 ± 0.67 | 06.80 ± 5.10 | 45.80 ± 3.04 | 140 ± 2.34 | 185 ± 3.21 |
All values are the means of three measurements.
Total phenolic content expressed as mg of GAE/100 g of dry weight (dw).
Total flavonoid content expressed as mg of GAE/100 g of dry weight (dw).
In - vivo antioxidant/radical scavenging activity of ethyl acetate fraction of plant extractsa.
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Normal Control | 0.65 ± 0.02 | 35.2 ± 0.8 | 96.6 ± 2.6 | 42.1 ± 0.4 | 0.65 ± 0.04 | 26.2 ± 3.1 | 120.1 ± 7.2 | 45.2 ± 2.5 | |
| Negative Control | 5.23 ± 0.01 | 16.2 ± 2.4 | 55.8 ± 1.8 | 280.2 ± 0.6 | 3.10 ± 0.50 | 18.2 ± 3.2 | 70.1 ± 3.5 | 22.2 ± 2.1 | |
| Plant extracts | P1 | 4.12 ± 0.42 | 25.5 ± 1.2 | 100.2 ± 3.2 | 30.5 ± 1.5 | 2.58 ± 0.25 | 24.2 ± 4.5 | 100.2 ± 3.7 | 40.2 ± 1.8 |
| P2 | 3.21 ± 0.15 | 20.4 ± 3.2 | 90.1 ± 2.2 | 28.8 ± 3.2 | 1.25 ± 0.12 | 20.2 ± 3.2 | 94.8 ± 1.8 | 34.1 ± 4.2 | |
| P3 | 1.12 ± 0.22 | 15.5 ± 0.9 | 75.3 ± 1.8 | 19.5 ± 1.8 | 1.00 ± 0.34 | 15.6 ± 1.8 | 90.5 ± 2.0 | 31.2 ± 2.0 | |
| P4 | 2.01 ± 0.30 | 18.6 ± 1.5 | 88.2 ± 5.2 | 23.5± 1.2 | 1.12 ± 0.08 | 18.1 ± 2.1 | 74.7 ± 2.5 | 33.5 ± 1.1 | |
| P5 | 3.45 ± 0.50 | 22.5 ± 2.5 | 98.1 ± 3.2 | 25.2 ± 2.2 | 2.00 ±0.32 | 22.4 ± 1.4 | 95.4 ± 3.0 | 36.1 ± 1.5 | |
| P6 | 1.15 ± 0.20 | 15.2 ± 1.4 | 60.1 ± 1.5 | 15.8 ± 2.8 | 0.98 ± 0.11 | 12.4 ± 3.5 | 70.3 ± 2.5 | 20.2 ± 3.4 | |
| Standard | 0.68 ± 0.02 | 35.2 ± 1.5 | 112.2 ± 5.2 | 40.5 ± 2.5 | 0.95 ± 0.12 | 30.2 ± 1.5 | 130.1 ± 3.6 | 40.1 ± 2.4 | |
Results are expressed as: LPO: nmole MDA/mg protein; GSH: µg/mg protein; SOD: U/mg protein; CAT: U/mg protein.
Values are mean ± SEM for six rats.
P < 0.001 considered as significant.
Normal Control: (1% CMC, 10 mL/Kg), Negative Control: CCl4 treated (0.5 mL/Kg), Plant extracts: CCl4 (50 mg/Kg + 0.5 mL/Kg) Standard: (Vitamin E + CCl4 (50 mg/Kg + 0.5 mL/Kg).
In - vitro xanthine oxidase inhibitory activity of plant extracts*.
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 µg/mL | 25 µg/mL | 50 µg/mL | 100 µg/mL | |||
|
| Aqueous | 18.4 ± 0.2 | 28.3 ± 0.1 | 42.8 ± 0.4 | 68.8 ± 0.2 | 4 |
| Methanolic | 38.4 ± 0.2 | 48.2 ± 0.6 | 62.1 ± 0.2 | 80.0 ± 0.5 | 5 | |
|
| Aqueous | 15.2 ± 0.2 | 22.5 ± 0.5 | 36.8 ± 0.1 | 65.8 ± 0.4 | 3 |
| Methanolic | 35.6 ± 0.1 | 42.4 ± 0.3 | 55.6 ± 0.2 | 76.0 ± 0.5 | 5 | |
|
| Aqueous | 10.4 ± 0.2 | 22.5 ± 0.1 | 38.8 ± 0.4 | 60.8 ± 0.2 | 5 |
| Methanolic | 15.6 ± 0.2 | 28.2 ± 0.6 | 45.8 ± 0.2 | 70.0 ± 0.5 | 6 | |
|
| Aqueous | 24.2 ± 0.1 | 32.1 ± 0.1 | 45.6 ± 0.5 | 60.1 ± 0.4 | 4 |
| Methanolic | 26.1 ± 0.2 | 35.0 ± 0.3 | 48.2 ± 0.2 | 65.4 ± 0.1 | 5 | |
|
| Aqueous | 30.0 ± 0.1 | 36.5 ± 0.3 | 42.2 ± 0.5 | 65.5 ± 0.6 | 5 |
| Methanolic | 34.6 ± 0.1 | 38.2 ± 0.6 | 50.6 ± 0.1 | 75.0 ± 0.5 | 5 | |
|
| Aqueous | 24.0 ± 0.2 | 42.5 ± 0.1 | 54.8 ± 0.1 | 70.5 ± 0.1 | 4 |
| Methanolic | 25.6 ± 0.2 | 45.2 ± 0.3 | 58.0 ± 0.7 | 80.0 ± 0.2 | 6 | |
| Allopurinol | 25.5 ± 0.2 | 30.8 ± 0.1 | 42.0 ± 0.2 | 50.2 ± 0.4 | 7 | |
Values are Mean± S.D. of three parallel measurements.