Literature DB >> 30450396

Comparative cytotoxic activity between kaempferol and gallic acid against various cancer cell lines.

Hong Ngoc Thuy Pham1,2, Jennette A Sakoff3, Quan Van Vuong1, Michael C Bowyer1, Christopher J Scarlett1.   

Abstract

This data article indicates the in vitro cytotoxicity of kaempferol and gallic acid across different cancer cell lines including A2780 (ovarian), H460 (lung), A431 (skin), MIA PaCa-2 (pancreas), Du145 (prostate), HT29 (colon), MCF-7 (breast), BE2-C (neuroblastoma), SJ-G2, U87 and SMA (glioblastoma). The dataset showed that the inhibitory activity of kaempferol was comparatively stronger than gallic acid. Thereby, kaempferol is offered as a potent anticancer agent for further investigation and beneficial as a dietary supplement. The data within this article relates to the research article entitled "Screening phytochemical content, antioxidant, antimicrobial and cytotoxic activities of Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don stem extract and its fractions" (Pham et al., 2018).

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 30450396      PMCID: PMC6226582          DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2018.10.121

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Data Brief        ISSN: 2352-3409


Specifications table Value of the data The data reveal the inhibitory activity of kaempferol and gallic acid against various cancer cell lines (Figs. 1 and 2).
Fig. 1

Proportion of live cell growth after treatment with kaempferol at different concentrations.

Fig. 2

Proportion of live cell growth after treatment with gallic acid at different concentrations.

It is clearly shown that kaempferol possessed greater in vitro anticancer activity than gallic acid, in particular against SMA (Glioblastoma murine), SJ-G2 (Glioblastoma) and A2780 (Ovarian) (Figs. 1 and 2). The GI50 values confirm the strong cytotoxicity of kaempferol (Table 1).
Table 1

Growth inhibition values (GI50, concentration that inhibits cell growth by 50%) of kaempferol and gallic acid across a panel of cancer cell lines.

Cell lineCancer cell typesGI50 values (µM)
KaempferolGallic acid
A2780Ovarian19 ± 0.33>50
H460Lung38 ± 3.30>50
A431Skin46 ± 2.70>50
MIA PaCa-2Pancreas>50>50
Du145Prostate50 ± 0.00>50
HT29Colon45 ± 2.90>50
MCF-7Breast>50>50
MCF10ABreast (normal)37 ± 3.5>50
BE2-CNeuroblastoma>50>50
SJ-G2Glioblastoma22 ± 2.10>50
U87Glioblastoma>50>50
SMAGlioblastoma (murine)26 ± 1.30>50

The values are means ± standard deviations (n = 3).

Data

This article indicates the comparative data of the proportion of live cancer cells after treatment with kaempferol and gallic acid at different concentrations (Figs. 1 and 2), which were found in the Catharanthus roseus stem extract and its fractions presented in the research article entitled “Screening phytochemical content, antioxidant, antimicrobial and cytotoxic activities of C. roseus (L.) G. Don stem extract and its fractions” [1]. The GI50 values of kaempferol and gallic acid across a panel of cancer cell lines, which inhibit the cell growth by 50%, were also determined (Table 1). The lower GI50 values indicate stronger growth inhibition. Proportion of live cell growth after treatment with kaempferol at different concentrations. Proportion of live cell growth after treatment with gallic acid at different concentrations. Growth inhibition values (GI50, concentration that inhibits cell growth by 50%) of kaempferol and gallic acid across a panel of cancer cell lines. The values are means ± standard deviations (n = 3).

Experimental design, materials and methods

Experimental design

Kaempferol and gallic acid were dissolved in DMSO to obtain the stock solutions which were then diluted using relevant media to obtain the working solutions. Tested cells were plated in culture media (100 µL) in a 96-well plate at a density of 2500–4000 cells per well. When cells were at logarithmic growth after 24 h, they were treated with the working solutions of kaempferol and gallic acid to give a final concentration of 50–0.01 µM. After 72 h of incubation, the proportion of live cell growth was determined using the MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay.

Materials

Kaempferol, gallic acid and dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Co. Human cancer cell lines were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA). 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) and Dulbecco׳s Modified Eagle׳s Medium (DMEM) were products of Gibco by Life Technologies (Grand Island, NY, USA).

Methods

All tested cancer lines and one non-tumour derived normal breast cell line (MCF10A) were maintained in a humidified atmosphere 5% CO2 at 37 °C. All cancer cell lines were cultured in DMEM supplemented with 10% foetal bovine serum, 100 IU/mL penicillin, 100 µg/mL streptomycin and 2 mM l-glutamine. The non-tumour derived MCF10A cells were cultured in DMEM:F12 (1:1) cell culture media, 5% heat inactivated horse serum, supplemented with penicillin (100 IU/mL), streptomycin (100 µg/mL), 20 mM Hepes, l-glutamine (2 mM), epidermal growth factor (20 ng/mL), hydrocortisone (500 ng/mL), cholera toxin (100 ng/mL) and insulin (10 µg/mL). Cytotoxic activity of kaempferol and gallic acid on various cancer cell lines was assessed using MTT assay as described in a previous study [2]. The absorbance values were read at 540 nm to determine the proportion of live cell growth. The growth inhibition values were also determined based on a dose response curve (50–0.01 µM).
Subject areaBiology
More specific subject areaAssessment of in vitro anticancer properties
Type of dataTable, figures
How data was acquiredMTT assay
Data formatAnalyzed
Experimental factorsKaempferol and gallic acid were dissolved in DMSO to generate the desired solutions before being used to treat the cell lines.
Experimental featuresMTT assay was applied to evaluate the cytotoxic activity of kaempferol and gallic acid against the selected cancer cell lines. Growth inhibition values (GI50, concentration that inhibits cell growth by 50%) of these compounds were also determined.
Data source locationN/A
Data accessibilityData are presented in this article
  8 in total

Review 1.  Kaempferol: A potential agent in the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Hamid Reza Nejabati; Leila Roshangar
Journal:  Physiol Rep       Date:  2022-10

Review 2.  Research Progress of Natural Small-Molecule Compounds Related to Tumor Differentiation.

Authors:  Xiaoli He; Yongkang Liao; Jing Liu; Shuming Sun
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 4.411

Review 3.  The Polyphenols as Potential Agents in Prevention and Therapy of Prostate Diseases.

Authors:  Tomislav Pejčić; Tomislav Tosti; Zoran Džamić; Uroš Gašić; Aleksandar Vuksanović; Zana Dolićanin; Živoslav Tešić
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 4.411

4.  Kaempferol, Myricetin and Fisetin in Prostate and Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Felice Crocetto; Erika di Zazzo; Carlo Buonerba; Achille Aveta; Savio Domenico Pandolfo; Biagio Barone; Francesco Trama; Vincenzo Francesco Caputo; Luca Scafuri; Matteo Ferro; Vincenzo Cosimato; Ferdinando Fusco; Ciro Imbimbo; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-10-23       Impact factor: 5.717

5.  Effect of Kaempferol on the Biological Behavior of Human Colon Cancer via Regulating MMP1, MMP2, and MMP9.

Authors:  Xiaoyu Zhang; Jianchun Fan; Fei Guo; Hailu Huang; Jun Xue; Xueliang Wu; Tian Li
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 4.501

Review 6.  Natural Compounds in Prostate Cancer Prevention and Treatment: Mechanisms of Action and Molecular Targets.

Authors:  Fabrizio Fontana; Michela Raimondi; Monica Marzagalli; Alessandro Di Domizio; Patrizia Limonta
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 6.600

7.  Anticancer Potential of Selected Flavonols: Fisetin, Kaempferol, and Quercetin on Head and Neck Cancers.

Authors:  Robert Kubina; Marcello Iriti; Agata Kabała-Dzik
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 5.717

8.  In Vitro and In Vivo Studies of Anti-Lung Cancer Activity of Artemesia judaica L. Crude Extract Combined with LC-MS/MS Metabolic Profiling, Docking Simulation and HPLC-DAD Quantification.

Authors:  Marwa S Goda; Mohamed S Nafie; Basma M Awad; Maged S Abdel-Kader; Amany K Ibrahim; Jihan M Badr; Enas E Eltamany
Journal:  Antioxidants (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-22
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.