| Literature DB >> 26822870 |
Aditi Sharma1, Rohit Goyal2, Lalit Sharma3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, Pine has been used to treat oxidative and inflammatory disorders. The study was aimed to investigate biological potential of phytoconstituents of Pinus plant species: Pinus roxburghii, Pinus wallichiana and Pinus gerardiana using in-vitro antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial methods.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26822870 PMCID: PMC4730770 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-016-1011-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Phytochemical screening of the plant extracts of three Pine species
| Compound | Detection method |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alkaloids | Dragendroff test, Mayers test, Wagners test | + | + | + |
| Flavonoids | Ferric chloride test | + | + | + |
| Amino acids | Ninhydrine test | − | − | − |
| Carbohydrates | Mollisch test | + | + | + |
| Fats and oils | Sudan 3 | + | + | + |
| Tannins | Gelatin test | + | + | + |
| Steroids | Salkowski test, sulfur powder test | + | + | + |
| Saponin Glycosides | Froth floatation test | + | + | + |
| Terpenoids | Lead acetate test | + | + | + |
| Phenolics | Salkowski’s test | + | + | + |
(+) Positive, (−) = Negative
Total antioxidant capacity, phenol content, flavonoid, β-carotene, lycopene and tannin contents in plant extracts
| Plant | Polyphenol content (mg of GAE/g DW) | Flavonoid content (mg of QR/g DW) | Tannin content (mg of QR/g DW) | β- carotene (μg/mg) | Lycopene (μg/mg) | Total antioxidant capacity (mg of GAE/g DW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 246.66 ± 1.52 | 597.14 ± 0.73 | 80.43 ± 1.3 | 0.1034 ± 0.001 | 0.065 ± 0.003 | 221.33 ± 0.6 |
|
| 222.33 ± 1.15 | 476.55 ± 0.42 | 72.34 ± 0.5 | 0.1054 ± 0.001 | 0.070 ± 0.001 | 202.21 ± 1.12 |
|
| 248.66 ± 0.57 | 535.23 ± 0.48 | 68.41 ± 0.3 | 0.104 ± 0.001 | 0.076 ± 0.0004 | 215.03 ± 0.42 |
Free radical scavenging activity of plant extracts
| Plants | IC50/DPPH (μg/ml) | IC50/H2O2 (μg/ml) | IC50/NO2 (μg/ml) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 97.54 ± 0.67 | 86.90 ± 1.2 | 111.38 ± 1.8 |
|
| 111.40 ± 0.78 | 84.18 ± 0.67 | 98.5 ± 2.1 |
|
| 102.86 ± 1.2 | 81.83 ± 0.84 | 109.23 ± 0.65 |
| Ascorbic acid | 18 ± 2.1 | 16.72 ± 0.42 | 17.99 ± 0.34 |
Fig. 1Antioxidant activities of the plant extracts estimated using: a DPPH radical scavenging activity, b Nitric oxide Radical scavenging activity, and c Hydrogen peroxide radical scavenging activity; * p < 0.05 vs control at respective concentration
Reducing power assay of plant extracts
| S.No. | Conc (μg/ml) |
|
|
| Ascorbic acid absorbance (700 nm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 10 | 0.304 ± 0.23 | 0.237 ± 0.64 | 0.325 ± 0.12 | 0.377 ± 0.19 |
| 2. | 20 | 0.454 ± 0.34 | 0.423 ± 0.98 | 0.463 ± 0.54 | 0.491 ± 0.78 |
| 3. | 40 | 0.569 ± 0.67 | 0.489 ± 1.17 | 0.511 ± 0.67 | 0.545 ± 0.45 |
| 4. | 80 | 0.642 ± 0.78 | 0.507 ± 0.78 | 0.626 ± 0.23 | 0.679 ± 0.34 |
| 5. | 120 | 0.762 ± 0.32 | 0.593 ± 0.54 | 0.652 ± 0.56 | 0.753 ± 0.41 |
| 7. | 180 | 0.824 ± 1.12 | 0.693 ± 0.32 | 0.792 ± 0.32 | 0.782 ± 0.63 |
| 8. | 200 | 0.842 ± 0.78 | 0.753 ± 0.11 | 0.812 ± 0.21 | 0.854 ± 0.43 |
Anti-inflammatory activities of the plant extracts estimated using (A) Albumin denaturation assay, and (B) HRBC membrane stabilization assay. Each value represents the mean of three experiments and standard deviation of measurement
| (A) | |||||
| Conc (μg/ml) |
|
|
| Diclofenac sodium (% inhibition) | Control (% inhibition) |
| 500 | 26.680 ± 2.48 | 21.080 ± 1.78 | 24.080 ± 1.12 | 58.030 ± 2.69 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| 1000 | 39.120 ± 1.13 | 34.820 ± 2.94 | 32.040 ± 2.19 | 68.050 ± 1.03 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| 1500 | 54.180 ± 3.74 | 46.630 ± 1.23 | 49.820 ± 1.54 | 76.040 ± 3.12 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| 2000 | 69.430 ± 1.13 | 64.080 ± 3.19 | 63.030 ± 1.23 | 85.030 ± 1.21 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| 2500 | 86.540 ± 1.85 | 76.540 ± 2.45 | 82.030 ± 2.67 | 92.040 ± 1.23 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| (B) | |||||
| Conc (μg/ml) |
|
|
| Diclofenac sodium (% protection) | Control (% protection) |
| 500 | 32.120 ± 1.32 | 27.540 ± 2.01 | 30.120 ± 2.18 | 61.030 ± 3.69 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| 1000 | 41.720 ± 2.16 | 35.920 ± 1.98 | 42.940 ± 1.43 | 70.050 ± 2.03 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| 1500 | 58.480 ± 2.54 | 46.130 ± 3.23 | 52.620 ± 3.14 | 79.041 ± 3.12 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| 2000 | 72.540 ± 3.19 | 67.840 ± 2.09 | 71.830 ± 1.12 | 87.030 ± 3.21 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| 2500 | 89.920 ± 2.64 | 81.240 ± 2.95 | 85.230 ± 2.47 | 94.840 ± 2.73 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
Antibacterial activity of plant extracts (inhibition zone)
| Sample | Concentration (μg/ml) | Inhibition zone (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 500 | – | – | – | – |
| 1000 | – | 10.2 ± 0.5 | – | 10.95 ± 0.5 | |
| 1500 | – | 12.1 ± 0.5 | – | 13.2 ± 0.5 | |
|
| 500 | – | – | – | – |
| 1000 | 11.25 ± 0.5 | 11.93 ± 0.5 | – | 10.12 ± 0.5 | |
| 1500 | 14.1 ± 0.5 | 14.21 ± 0.5 | – | 12.3 ± 0.5 | |
|
| 500 | – | – | – | – |
| 1000 | – | – | – | – | |
| 1500 | 10.05 ± 0.5 | – | – | – | |
Fig. 2Bacterial inhibition zone using plant extracts: P.roxburghii extract: (1) K. pueumoniae, (2) P aeruriginosa, (3) S. aureus, (4) E. coli; P. wallichiana and P. gerardiana extracts: (5) K. pueumoniae, (6) E. coli, (7) P. aeruriginosa, (8) S. aureus
Antifungal activity of plant extracts (inhibition zone)
| Sample | Concentration (μg/ml) | Inhibition zone (mm) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
|
| 500 | – | – |
| 1000 | 13.1 ± 0.5 | – | |
| 1500 | 15.3 ± 0.5 | – | |
|
| 500 | 14.05 ± 0.5 | – |
| 1000 | 17.23 ± 0.5 | – | |
| 1500 | 18.93 ± 0.5 | – | |
|
| 500 | – | – |
| 1000 | 12.15 ± 0.5 | – | |
| 1500 | 15.01 ± 0.5 | – | |
Fig. 3Fungal inhibition zone using plant extracts: P.roxburghii extract (1) and P.wallichiana and P. gerardiana (2) against Candida albicans; P.roxburghii (3) and P. wallichiana and P.gerardiana (4) against Saccharomyces cereveseae