| Literature DB >> 25315352 |
Ahmed M Aboul-Enein, Sanaa M M Shanab, Emad A Shalaby1, Malak M Zahran, David A Lightfoot, Hany A El-Shemy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eichhornia crassipes (Mart) solms is an invasive macrophyte causing serious problems to the network of irrigation and drainage canals in the Nile Delta region. The present study aim to evaluate the potential anticancer and antioxidant activities of Eichhornia crassipes crude extract and its pure compounds.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25315352 PMCID: PMC4213547 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-14-397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Figure 1Fractionation of crude methanolic extract of using silica gel TLC and hexane/ethyl acetate (8.5:1.5, v/v) as mobile phase.
Figure 2Suggested chemical structure of active compounds separated from A: (18, 19-Secoyohimban-19-oic acid, 16, 17, 20, 21-tetradehydro-16-(hydroxymethyl)-, methyl ester (15 beta, 16 E) M. W. 352 Da B: 1,2-Benzene dicarboxylic acid, mono-(2-ethylhexyl ester) M. W 278 Da C: 1, 2 Benzene dicarboxylic acid, diisooctyl ester M. W. 390 Da. D: Di amino-di nitro-Methyl dioctyl phthalate M. W. 662 Da E: 1, 2 Benzene dicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester M. W. 390 Da. F: 9-(2,2-Dimethyl propanoilhydrazono)-2,7-bis-[2-{diethylamino)-ethoxy] fluorine M.Wt=576. G: (3-Methyl phenyl)-phenyl methanol M.Wt.=198. H: 4- (diethylamino)-alpha-[4-(diethylamino) phenyl] M.Wt.=326. I: Isooctyl phthalate M. Wt= 390.
IC (μg/mL) of different compounds separated from against DPPH and ABTS radical, and its relative percentage to Ascorbic acid as natural antioxidant
| Materials | DPPH method | ABTS method | Relative percentage to Vit. C |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 74.8 ± 4.5f | 50.8 ± 2.4g | 23.64 |
|
| 99.2 ± 5.8a | 77.0 ± 3.2c | 15.6 |
|
| 97.1 ± 3.9b | 78.5 ± 2.4a | 15.29 |
|
| 97.4 ± 2.7b | 77.6 ± 1.3b | 15.47 |
|
| 92.4 ± 6.5e | 73.2 ± 4.2e | 16.39 |
|
| 95.4 ± 3.1d | 75.8 ± 2.6d | 15.84 |
|
| 97.2 ± 4.6b | 77.9 ± 1.9ab | 15.40 |
|
| 97.2 ± 1.6b | 75.8 ± 1.6d | 15.84 |
|
| 96.5 ± 2.7c | 69.8 ± 3.0f | 17.20 |
|
| 97.0 ± 5.4b | 76.8 ± 3.1c | 15.62 |
|
| 8.7 ± 0.5i | 5 ± 0.02j | |
|
| 11.5 ± 0.95h | 9.4 ± 0.55i | |
|
| 18.6 ± 1.0 g | 12.0 ± 0.60h | |
|
| 0.387 | 0.569 |
*Standard antioxidants.
Each value is represented as mean of triple treatments, means within each row with different letters differ significantly at P < 0.01 according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Cytotoxicity [Expressed as IC (μg/mL)] of crude extract of and its fractionated products on different tumor cell lines
| Materials | IC 50(μg/mL) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HeLa cell line | HepG2 cell line | MCF-7 cell line | EACC | |
|
| 1.6 ± 0.5j | 7.6 ± 1.5i | 1.2 ± 0.2i | 6.04 ± 0.5j |
|
| 7.7 ± 4g | 40.2 ± 10.1c | 13.6 ± 5.3g | 8.61 ± 2.1f |
|
| 10.7 ± 1.3d | 28.3 ± 3.7d | 13.4 ± 1.9g | 17.3 ± 3.5b |
|
| 12.8 ± 5.1b | 74.2 ± 12.5a | 19.4 ± 9.2e | 7.29 ± 1.6h |
|
| 4.3 ± 2.3i | 23.6 ± 7f | 27.2 ± 2.5d | 6.42 ± 0.8i |
|
| 9.9 ± 3.4e | 56.1 ± 12.3b | 31.4 ± 9.6c | 8.19 ± 1.2g |
|
| 6.9 ± 3.1h | 14.9 ± 8.1h | 41.3 ± 6.4b | 9.9 ± 2.6e |
|
| 9.0 ± 3.7f | 23.8 ± 5.4e | 17.5 ± 4.7f | 12.7 ± 4.2c |
|
| 14.1 ± 7.0a | 15.4 ± 3.6g | 11.1 ± 6.1h | 12.3 ± 2.7d |
|
| 11.8 ± 7.0c | 0.8 ± 0.4j | 69.1 ± 4.9a | 22.8 ± 6.9a |
|
| 0.28 ± 0.07j | 0.42 ± 0.05j | 0.42 ± 0.11j | -- |
|
| 0.225 | 0.16 | 0.284 | 0.188 |
Each value is presented as mean of triple treatments, means within each row with different letters differ significantly at P < 0.01 according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
*DOX: Doxorubicin (Standard anticancer drug).
Figure 3Dose-response curve of crude extract in solid Tumor cell line culture of HeLa (●) HepG2 (○) MCF-7 (▼) and EACC (■) cells. Cells were exposed to the crude extract for 72 h. Cell viability was determined by using of SRB-U assay while for EACC the incubation was for 4 h and viability was determined by use Trypan blue assay and data are expressed as mean ± S.D (n = 3).
Figure 4Relative percentage (%) of different fractions separated from methanolic extract of .
Figure 5DNA fragmentation patterns obtained after incubation of tested compounds (A-I) with different tumor cells. (M: DNA marker).
Hypohromicity and Hyperchromicity of active ingredients separated from
| Compounds | DNA | Compounds + DNA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O.D | O.D | Expected | Observed | ||
| 260 nm | 260 nm | After 2 h | After 24 h | ||
|
| 0.0325 | 0.6995 | 0.732 | 0.289 | 0.391 |
|
| 0.139 | 0.838 | 1.032 | 1.196 | |
|
| 0.065 | 0.764 | 0.893 | 1.168 | |
|
| 0.0995 | 0.7985 | 0.906 | 1.042 | |
|
| 0.0725 | 0.7715 | 0.863 | 0.99 | |
|
| 0.3085 | 1.0075 | 1.036 | 1.050 | |
|
| 0.1245 | 0.8235 | 0.956 | 1.07 | |
|
| 0.1905 | 0.8895 | 1.080 | 1.04 | |
|
| 0.0850 | 0.7840 | 0.841 | 0.928 | |
Figure 6Hypochromicity of active compounds separated from