| Literature DB >> 30606171 |
Tanzeel Zohra1,2, Muhammad Ovais3,4, Ali Talha Khalil5, Muhammad Qasim6, Muhammad Ayaz7, Zabta Khan Shinwari6,8, Sajjad Ahmad9, Mohammad Zahoor10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plants represEntities:
Keywords: Atriplex lasiantha; Cytotoxicity; Free radicals; Leishmaniasis; Phytochemical analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30606171 PMCID: PMC6318930 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-018-2416-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Percent extract recovery of A. lasiantha extracts through different extraction solvents
| E. Sol | N | C | EA | A | E | M | W | NEA | EN | MEC | MEEA | MEA | AW | MD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % E. | 1.7± | 6.8± | 1.9± | 4.9± | 2.9± | 7.7± | 6.1± | 5.6± | 3.7± | 5.3± | 10± | 3.3± | 4.96± | 11± |
Results were presented as mean ± standard deviation through triplicate experiments. N: n-hexane, C: Chloroform, EA: Ethyl acetate, A: Acetone, E: Ethanol, ME: Methanol, W: Distilled water, NEA: n-hexane: ethyl acetate, EN: ethanol: n- hexane, MEC: methanol: chloroform MEEA: Methanol-Ethyl acetate, MEA: methanol: acetone, AW: acetone: water, MD: methanol: water
Fig. 1Graph representing correlation of Total Phenolic Content and Total Flavonoid Content in terms of (μg GAE/mg) and (μg QE/mg) respectively
Fig. 2Total phenolic content and flavonoid content determination of aerial part of A. lasiantha. Results were presented as mean ± S.D. (n = 3). N: n-hexane, C: Chloroform, EA: Ethyl acetate, A: Acetone, E: Ethanol, ME: Methanol, W: Distilled water, NEA: n-hexane:ethyl acetate, EN: ethanol:n-hexane, MEC: methanol:chloroform MEEA: Methanol-Ethyl acetate, MEA: methanol:acetone, AW: acetone:water, MED: methanol: water
Fig. 3HPLC- DAD profiling of Atriplex lasiantha methanol: ethyl acetate extract (AMEA) at different wavelength. Only rutin was detected at 257 nm. Conditions: Mobile Phase A (methanol: acetic acid; deionized water, 100: 20: 180, v/v) and Mobile Phase B (methanol: acetic acid: deionized water, 900: 20: 80,v/v). The flow rate was kept at 1 ml/min. The gradient volume of B was utilized as follows: 0–50% in 0–20 min, 50–100% in 20–25 min and then 100% from 25 to 30 min. The absorption of samples was recorded at different wavelengths e.g. Gallic acid at 257 nm, catechin at 279 nm, Rutin at 257 nm, caffeic acid at 325 nm and kaempferol, quercetin, myricetin at 368 nm, but only rutin was detected
HPLC-DAD analysis of Methanol Ethyl Acetate (MEA) Extracts of Atriplex lasiantha
| Standard | GA | Rut | CA | Cat | Api | Myr | Quer | Kaem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| λ (nm) | 257 | 257 | 325 | 279 | 325 | 368 | 368 | 368 |
| μgmg | ND | 0.3 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
λ (nm) represents wavelength in nanometer while μg mg−1 represents the quantity of polyphenol in microgram per milligram of the extract. ND: Not Detected, GA: Gallic Acid, Rut: Rutin, CA: Caffeic Acid, Cat: Catechin, Api: Apigenin, Myr: Myrecetin, Quer: Quercetin, Kaem: Kaempferol
Fig. 4TAC (Total antioxidant capacity, μg AAE/mg plant extract), TRP (Total reducing power, μg AAE/mg plant extract) and FRSA (free radical scavenging activity) determination in aerial part of A. lasiantha. Results were presented as mean ± S.D. (n = 3). N: n-hexane, C: Chloroform, EA: Ethyl acetate, A: Acetone, E: Ethanol, ME: Methanol, W: Distilled water, NEA: n-hexane:ethyl acetate, EN: ethanol:n-hexane, MEC: methanol:chloroform MEEA: Methanol-Ethyl acetate, MEA: methanol:acetone, AW: acetone:water, MED: methanol:water
Antibacterial activity of A. lasiantha extracts against pathogenic bacteria
| Extracts Codes | Diameter of growth zone inhibition Zone (mm ± SD at 100 μg/disc; MIC: μg/ml) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gram negative bacteria | Gram positive bacteria | |||||||||
|
| MIC |
| MIC |
| MIC |
| MIC |
| MIC | |
| N | 7.9 ± 0.45 | > 100*** | 7 ± 0.97 | > 100*** | 8.6 ± 1.20 | > 100*** | 7.1 ± 0.62 | > 100*** | – | – |
| C | 7.7 ± 0.9 | > 100*** | 8 ± 0.43 | > 100*** | 8.3 ± 0.9 | > 100*** | 7.4 ± 1.04 | > 100*** | – | – |
| EA | 7.2 ± 0.61 | > 100*** | 9 ± 0.57 | > 100*** | 7.5 ± 0.78 | > 100*** | 7 ± 0.36 | > 100*** | – | – |
| A | – | – | – | – | 7.5 ± 0.54 | > 100*** | – | – | – | – |
| E | 7.1 ± 0.54 | > 100*** | 8 ± 0.68 | > 100*** | 7.1 ± 0.69 | > 100*** | – | – | – | – |
| M | 7.0 ± 0.82 | > 100*** | – | – | 8.5 ± 1.2 | > 100*** | – | – | – | – |
| W | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| NEA | 8.5 ± 0.29 | > 100*** | 7 ± 0.43 | > 100*** | 7.1 ± 0.25 | > 100*** | – | – | – | – |
| EN | 7.3 ± 0.84 | > 100*** | 8 ± 0.53 | > 100*** | 7.3 ± 0.19 | > 100*** | – | – | – | – |
| MEC | 8.1 ± 0.32 | > 100*** | – | – | 7.1 ± 0.23 | > 100*** | – | – | – | – |
| MEEA | – | – | – | – | – | – | 9 ± 0.74 | 100*** | – | – |
| MEA | 8.3 ± 0.63 | > 100*** | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| AW | – | – | – | – | – | – | 11 ± 0.65 | 100*** | – | – |
| MD | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| PC | 12 ± 1.12 | 1.56 | 23 ± 1.04 | 0.78 | 28 ± 1.09 | 0.39 | 21 ± 0.9 | 3.12 | 14 ± 0.7 | 6.25 |
Results were presented as mean ± S.D. (n = 3). ***: P < 0.001. -- = No activity, PC: Positive Control (Cefixime), N: n-hexane, C: Chloroform, EA: Ethyl acetate, A: Acetone, E: Ethanol, M: Methanol, W: Distilled water, NEA: n-hexane-Ethyl acetate, EN: ethanol-n-hexane, MEC: methanol-chloroform MEEA: Methanol-Ethyl acetate, MEA: methanol-acetone, AW: acetone-water, MD: methanol-water
Antifungal activity of A. lasiantha against various fungal strains
| Extracts/ | Diameter of growth inhibition zone (mm) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| MIC μg/ml |
| MIC μg/ml | Mucor spp. | MIC μg/ml |
| MIC μg/ml |
| MIC μg/ml | |
| N | – | – | – | – | 7 ± 0.43 | 100*** | 7 ± 0.44 | 100*** | 7 ± 0.39 | 100*** |
| C | – | – | 8 ± 0.51 | 100*** | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| EA | – | – | 12 ± 0.31 | 100*** | – | – | – | – | 7 ± 0.25 | 100*** |
| A | – | – | – | – | – | – | 7 ± 0.29 | 100*** | – | – |
| E | 8 ± 0.46 | 100*** | 9 ± 0.67 | 100*** | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| M | 8 ± 0.52 | 100*** | – | – | 7 ± 0.39 | 100*** | – | – | – | – |
| W | – | – | 10 ± 1.09 | 100*** | – | – | – | – | 7 ± 0.37 | 100*** |
| NEA | 10 ± 0.76 | 100*** | 14 ± 1.94 | 50*** | 8 ± 0.46 | 100*** | – | – | – | – |
| EN | – | – | – | – | – | – | 8 ± 0.53 | 100*** | 8 ± 0.53 | 100*** |
| MEC | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| MEEA | 8 ± 0.49 | 100*** | – | – | 7 ± 0.87 | 100*** | – | – | – | – |
| MEA | – | – | 7 ± 0.47 | 100*** | – | – | 7 ± 0.37 | 100*** | – | – |
| AW | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| MD | – | – | 8 ± 0.81 | 100*** | – | – | 9 ± 0.71 | 100*** | 7 ± 0.42 | 100*** |
| PC | 30 ± 1.54 | 1.56 | 32 ± 1.15 | 3.12 | 28 ± 0.87 | 6.25 | 30 ± 1.46 | 1.56 | 34 ± 2.04 | 0.78 |
Results were presented as mean ± S.D., n = 3, ***: P < 0.001. -- = No activity; N: n-hexane, C: Chloroform, EA: Ethyl acetate, A: Acetone, E: Ethanol, ME: Methanol, W: Distilled water, NEA: n-hexane:ethyl acetate, EN: ethanol: n-hexane, MEC: methanol:chloroform MEEA: Methanol-Ethyl acetate, MEA: methanol:acetone, AW: acetone: water, MED: methanol:water. PC: Positive control (Clotrimazole)
Fig. 5Percent α-amylase inhibitory potential of various samples of extraction solvents. Results were presented as mean ± S.D.; n = 3, ***: P < 0.001. Nh: n-hexane, C: Chloroform, EA: Ethyl acetate, A: Acetone, E: Ethanol, M: Methanol, W: Distilled water, NEA: n-hexane-Ethyl acetate, EN: ethanol-n-hexane, MEC: methanol-chloroform MEEA: Methanol-Ethyl acetate, MEA: methanol-acetone, AW: acetone-water, MD: methanol-water, PC: Positive control (Acarbose)
HepG2 Cytotoxicity, Streptomyces hyphae formation inhibition and Anti-leishmanial capability of various solvent extracts
| Extract/ | Hep G2 Cytotoxicity | Protein kinase inhibition | Antileishmanial capability | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| inhibition% | IC50 (μg/ml) | Diameter of zone of inhibition (mm) | Mortality % | LC50 μg/ml | ||
| Clear zone | Bald zone | |||||
| N | – | – | – | 7 ± 0.37*** | 71 ± 0.49 | 12.8*** |
| C | 10 ± 1.5 | 204*** | – | 8 ± 0.81*** | – | – |
| EA | 18 ± 1.01 | 101*** | – | 9 ± 0.49*** | – | – |
| A | 3 ± 0.9 | 773*** | – | 7 ± 0.97*** | – | – |
| E | 7 ± 0.89 | 312*** | – | 8 ± 0.43*** | – | – |
| M | 21 ± 0.37 | 096*** | – | 9 ± 0.57*** | – | – |
| W | – | – | – | – | 71 ± 0.93 | 16.8*** |
| NEA | – | – | – | 8 ± 0.68*** | 72 ± 0.76 | 11.5** |
| EN | 16 ± 1.34 | 168*** | 8 ± 0.34 | – | – | – |
| MEC | 39 ± 1.01 | 046*** | 9 ± 0.41 | – | – | – |
| MEEA | – | – | 8 ± 0.70 | – | – | – |
| MEA | 12 ± 0.57 | 191*** | – | 11 ± 0.49*** | – | – |
| AW | 15 ± 0.83 | 149*** | 9 ± 0.51 | – | – | – |
| MD | – | – | 8 ± 0.68 | – | – | – |
| PC | 57 ± 2.56 | 5.10 | – | 21 ± 1.02 | 79 ± 1.15 | 0.01 |
Results were presented as mean ± SD; n = 3; The percent potential of each sample has been expressed at 100 μg/mL **: P < 0.01, ***: P < 0.001. -- = Not active, N: n-hexane, C: Chloroform, EA: Ethyl acetate, A: Acetone, E: Ethanol, M: Methanol, W: Distilled water, NEA: n-hexane-Ethyl acetate, EN: ethanol-n-hexane, MEC: methanol-chloroform MEEA: Methanol-Ethyl acetate, MEA: methanol-acetone, AW: acetone-water, MD: methanol-water, PC: Positive control; Doxorubicin employed in cytotoxicity assay, Surfactin in Protein kinase inhibition assay, Amphotericin-B in Antileshmanial assay
Fig. 6Percent hemolytic potential of various samples of extraction solvents. Results were presented as mean ± S.D.; n = 3; ***: P < 0.001. N: n-hexane, C: Chloroform, EA: Ethyl acetate, A: Acetone, E: Ethanol, M: Methanol, W: Distilled water, NEA: n-hexane-Ethyl acetate, EN: ethanol-n-hexane, MEC: methanol-chloroform MEEA: Methanol-Ethyl acetate, MEA: methanol-acetone, AW: acetone-water, MD: methanol-water, PC: Positive control (Triton-X100)