| Literature DB >> 35677711 |
Mahmoud Dogara Abdulrahman1, Ali Muhammad Zakariya2,3, Harmand A Hama1, Saber W Hamad1,4, Sawsan S Al-Rawi1, Sarwan W Bradosty5, Ahmad H Ibrahim6.
Abstract
Medicinal plants are the primary raw materials used in the production of medicinal products all over the world. As a result, more study on plants with therapeutic potential is required. The tropical tree Ziziphus spina belongs to the Rhamnaceae family. Biological reports and traditional applications including management of diabetes and treatment of malaria, digestive issues, typhoid, liver complaints, weakness, skin infections, urinary disorders, obesity, diarrhoea, and sleeplessness have all been treated with different parts of Z. spina all over the globe. The plant is identified as a rich source of diverse chemical compounds. This study is a comprehensive yet detailed review of Z. spina based on major findings from around the world regarding ethnopharmacology, biological evaluation, and chemical composition. Scopus, Web of Science, BioMed Central, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Springer Link, and Google Scholar were searched to find published articles. From the 186 research articles reviewed, we revealed the leaf extract to be significant against free radicals, microbes, parasites, inflammation-related cases, obesity, and cancer. Chemically, polyphenols/flavonoids were the most reported compounds with a composition of 66 compounds out of the total 193 compounds reported from different parts of the plant. However, the safety and efficacy of Z. spina have not been wholly assessed in humans, and further well-designed clinical trials are needed to corroborate preclinical findings. The mechanism of action of the leaf extract should be examined. The standard dose and safety of the leaf should be established.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35677711 PMCID: PMC9168210 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4495688
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci ISSN: 2633-4690
Figure 1Flowchart of the methodology.
Figure 2Distribution of Ziziphus spina.
Biological evaluation of Z. spina.
| S/N | Biological evaluation | Method | Solvents | Plant part | Major findings | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Antioxidant | Callus extract | Zinc and selenium oxide nanoparticles | On 1-BJ1 normal cells, ZnONPs and SeONPs have promising antioxidant potential | [ | |
| DPPH and |
| Fruits | With IC50 values of 5.5 and 4.1 | [ | ||
| DPPH, FRAP | Ethanol, hexane | Ethanolic extract demonstrates higher inhibitory activity compared with the hexane. The lower the value, the better the plants' ability to scavenge free radicals | [ | |||
| DPPH, FRAP | Methanolic, ethanolic, and aqueous | Leaves | With IC50 values of 21.4, 24.2, and 54.3 g/mL for methanolic, aqueous, and ethanolic leaf extracts, respectively, the activity demonstrated good antioxidant capacity in terms of radical scavenging activity. The leaf extracts' reducing power was discovered to be concentration dependent | [ | ||
|
| 70% ethanol | Leaves | Enhanced balance and motor coordination. Short step-through latency was lengthened when the leaf extract was administered to ischemia rats | [ | ||
| In addition to reducing malondialdehyde levels in the brain and serum, the leaf extract also increased serum and brain antioxidant ability | ||||||
| DPPH | Ethanol | Leaves | With an IC50 of 23.4, leaves had a significant activity against free radicals | [ | ||
| DPPH | Aqueous and ethanolic | Leaves and bark | The activity of the leaf aqueous and ethanolic extracts was 30 and 91 at a concentration of 0.5 mL, respectively, while that of the aqueous and ethanolic extract of the bark was 44 and 70, respectively | [ | ||
|
| 70% methanol | Fruits | The findings of this study show that the fruit extract may prevent the development of chronic experimental colitis in rats | [ | ||
|
| Ethanolic, aqueous | Leaves | The leaf extracts had immunologic and antioxidant effects on rabbits exposed to a 2% H2O2 solution to generate oxidative stress | [ | ||
| DPPH, FRAP | Seeds | 6–12–24–48 h were all used in the fermentation process. Fermented seed extracts had substantially higher phenolic, vitamin C, and total carotenoid contents and antioxidant activity than unfermented samples at | [ | |||
| DPPH | Methanol | Leaves | The leaf extract has an IC50 of 33.91 mg/mL for scavenging activity | [ | ||
| DPPH | Methanol | Leaves | The leaf extract had a high level of antioxidant activity at 0.086 | [ | ||
| DPPH, ribosomal degradation assay | Aqueous | Essential oil | Scavenging activity of the essential was found with an IC50 value of 53 ± 2 | [ | ||
| DPPH | Ethyl acetate | Whole plant | The whole plant extract demonstrated significant inhibition capacity at 61 ± 0.04 | [ | ||
| DPPH | Distilled water, methanol | Leaves | A dose-dependent inhibition was seen in distilled water and methanol leaf extract. However, the proportion of free radical inhibition in the n-butanol fraction was greater than that in the other fractions | [ | ||
| ABTS, DPPH, FRAP, SRSA, TRPA | Methanol | Fruits | All methods exhibited a strong activity, with chelating methods having the highest at 94% at the concentration of 100 | [ | ||
| Rancimat, DPPH | Leaves | The results show that leaf polyphenols, when added to the test system in varying amounts, have antioxidant activity. Similarly, after only 10 minutes, a scavenging capacity of 40.00 was achieved using four different concentrations of phenolic compounds. After the first 10 minutes of incubation, the scavenging capacity remained the same in all cases | [ | |||
| DPPH, ABTS, and Fe2+ chelating assays | Aqueous, methanol, ethanol, acetone | Root | DPPH, ABTS, and Fe2+ chelating assays with IC50 values of 0.41 ± 0.01; 0.33 ± 0.14; and 0.24 ± 0.03, respectively | [ | ||
| Peroxidase, catalase assay | Aqueous, ethanolic | Leaves | Leaf extract exhibited a significant activity against the free radicals | [ | ||
|
| Leaves | Antioxidants such as T-AOC, GSH-Px, T-SOD, and CAT considerably greater in the blood of rats fed with high leaf diets | [ | |||
| DPPH, ABTS | Aqueous, methanol | Leaves | When compared with the benchmark of 100 | [ | ||
| DPPH | 70% ethanol | Seeds and fruits | The fruits were found to have the highest inhibition of 54.10 at the concentration of 200 | [ | ||
|
| ||||||
| 2 | Anti-inflammatory |
| Ethanol | Root or bark | With a total inhibition of 79.2%. This explains why these plants have long been used as polyherbs to cure ulcers | [ |
|
| In addition to reducing ulcer size and reducing colitis indicators, pretreatment with the extract (100, 200, and 400 mg/kg/day) at various dosages slowed the progression of inflammation and prevented mucosal damage. In comparison with the reference medicine, mesalazine (MLZ), ZFE (400 mg/kg) therapy reduced inflammatory colonic damage more significantly | [ | ||||
|
| Leaves | Substantially and dose-dependently reduced sepsis-induced liver and spleen damage, according to our findings. These findings imply that, through eliciting anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects, they could be used to treat sepsis | [ | |||
| Protein denaturation | 70% ethanol | Seeds and fruits | Both portions of the plant extract had anti-inflammatory activity that was comparable to that of the common anti-inflammatory medication diclofenac | [ | ||
| Methanol | Root (ZS-Ag-NPs) | It effectively enhanced mRNA expression levels of vascular endothelial cell growth factor and decreased oxidative stress as well as vascular cell inflammation in adipocyte CM. Obesity progression and metabolic inflammatory pathogenesis associated with age were successfully decreased by ZS-Ag-NPs' molecular mechanical activity | [ | |||
| Protein denaturation | Methanol, ethanol | Leaves | High activity was recorded with the methanolic extract even at 95 compared with the standard at 20.2%, respectively | [ | ||
| Ethanolic, aqueous | Leaves | The ethanolic extract demonstrated significant efficacy as well as modest antipyretic effect | [ | |||
|
| Hexane, chloroform, ethyl acetate, and methanol | Root | In all models, except the tail-flick test, where the activity was not statistically significant, the percentage exhibits some amount of dose-related effect | [ | ||
|
| Leaves (AgNPs) | Pretreatment with nanoparticles improved histological parameters such as little infiltration and fibrosis, low pleomorphism, and reduced hepatocytes and degeneration | [ | |||
|
| Leaf | Using extract ointments for burns is beneficial | [ | |||
| Healing with histological alterations, however, the group treated with leaf extract had the greatest improvement | ||||||
| Ointment had a better cellular response to the inflammatory process than the other group in which re-epithelialization appears early in the healing process | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 3 | Antibacterial | Ethanol, aqueous | Leaves | [ | ||
| Agar diffusion | Ethanol, petroleum ether, ethyl acetate, methanol, and aqueous | Leaves, stem bark, fruits | The extract at the concentration of 100 mg/mL was found to have activity against some of the tested strain with methanolic extract having a minimum MIC at 6.25 | [ | ||
| Disc | Ethanol | Leaves | The highest zone of inhibition was found at 15 mm against | [ | ||
| Cup-plate agar diffusion | Petroleum ether, chloroform, methanol, and aqueous | Fruits, leaves, seeds, and stems | Methanol extracts from all parts had the highest activity, followed by chloroform and petroleum ether. No activity was recorded from aqueous extracts | [ | ||
| Ethanolic, aqueous | Leaves | It also stopped the tested strain from growing. However, there was no evidence of analgesic or diuretic action. Surface activity was seen in the aqueous extract of the leaves, with a threshold micelle concentration of 0.25 percent w/v | [ | |||
| Agar well diffusion | Leaves | With an MIC value of 0.25 mg/mL, | [ | |||
| Disc diffusion | Aqueous | Seeds | The extract exhibited substantial action against all tested MDR strains. Besides, its polyphenol component demonstrated a stronger impact. Furthermore, the entire extract MIC varied between 3.125 and 12.5 mg/mL and MBC was 3.125–25 mg/mL against prior strains. While the polyphenol fraction, MIC and MBC were around 0.312–1.25 mg/mL and 0.312–2.5 mg/mL, respectively | [ | ||
| Aqueous, ethanolic | Leaves | Both extracts have an inhibitory effect on many bacterial species in this investigation. Most effective at 200 mg/mL when they came to killing germs | [ | |||
| Callus extract | Zinc and selenium oxide nanoparticles | The results showed that both crystals have antibacterial ability against the tested strains, with SeONPs having stronger antimicrobial activity than ZnONPs | [ | |||
| Agar well | Hexane | Seed oil | At 11, 10, 8, and 8 mm, it was active against the tested strains. The findings of this study have established scientific validity for the use of this seed oil in herbal medicine to treat bacteria-related diseases | [ | ||
| Disc diffusion | Ethanolic and methanolic | Leaves | Both extracts were discovered to be potent antibacterial agents against all microorganisms tested. At concentrations of 128, 100, 64, and 32 mg/L, inhibitory action was measured. At 128 mg/L, the ethanolic extract exhibited the maximum activity of 21 mm against | [ | ||
| Disc diffusion | Ethanol | Leave | At doses of 5, 15, and 30 mg/mL, the average diameter of the inhibitory zone was 0 to 17 mm. At 30 mg/mL, it is highly effective against all used bacterial strains. With | [ | ||
| Agar diffusion | Aqueous and ethanolic | Leaves | The inhibitory zone's diameter in cm varied between 1.5 and 2.3 and 2 and 2.2, respectively | [ | ||
| Agar well | Ethanol | Stem bark | At | [ | ||
| Well-diffusion method | Aqueous | Honey | The microbiological strains were severely hampered. There were no resistant microbial strains, with the highest sensitivity at 36 mm | [ | ||
| MIC |
| Fruits | The minimum inhibitory concentrations against the tested microorganisms ranged from 32 to 125 g/mL | [ | ||
| Agar-well diffusion, MIC, MBC | Methanol | Fruits | Overall, the research found that the fruit extract possessed Gram-negative bacteria that have no antibacterial action, while moderate antibacterial activity was shown against gram-positive bacteria. The discovered actions, however, were not noteworthy compared with antibiotics | [ | ||
| Well-diffusion method | Aqueous | Aquatic leaves, aquatic stem bark, and combination of leaves + stem bark | All of the tested strains were extremely sensitive to a combination of leaves and stem bark within the inhibition zone of 25–35 mm | [ | ||
| Disc diffusion | Ethanol, aqueous | Leaves | The ethanolic leaf extract had the highest activity against | [ | ||
| Disc diffusion method | Ethanol | Leaves | Within the 8–26 mm range, there was a lot of activity | [ | ||
| Agar well | AgNO3 aqueous | Leaf | The SNPs had good activity against | [ | ||
| Methanol | Leaves | The extract revealed activity via secondary metabolites such as alkaloids and flavonoids. Significant influences on microbial growth harmed energy metabolism, leading to fat accumulation and protein inhibition | [ | |||
| Well diffusion method | Methanol | Leaves, fruits, and stems | Leaf extract exhibited higher inhibition zone at | [ | ||
| Agar well | Ethanol and methanol | Bark, leaves, fruits, seeds and roots | All of the bacterial strain tested were sensitive to plant extracts. Except for | [ | ||
| Well diffusion | Aqueous and ethanol | Leaves and stem bark | The aqueous stem bark extracts had inhibition on the tested strains with the highest inhibition on | [ | ||
| Disc diffusion | Aqueous | Leaf (AgNPs) | The extract had a good inhibitory impact on all gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria tested, with the maximum activity against | [ | ||
| Ethanol | It was found to exhibited activity at 9, 6, 7, 5, and 6 mm against the tested strain | [ | ||||
| Well diffusion | Aqueous | Leaf (AgNO3) | Maximal inhibitory zones activity of 24, 23, 15, and 17 mm in the extract, respectively | [ | ||
| Agar disc diffusion | Ethanolic | Seed | These extracts demonstrated inhibitory activity at various stages of germination; the first stage had 22 mm inhibitory activity against | [ | ||
| Plate agar method | Petroleum ether, chloroform, 80% ethanol, and aqueous | Leaves, fruits, and seeds | A significant activity was recorded from the extract | [ | ||
| Agar diffusion | Methanolic | Leaves |
| [ | ||
| Leaves | With a probability activity value of more than 0.300, PASS analysis revealed that 15 compounds (64.51 percent) have antibacterial potential. The extract inhibited pathogenic bacterial growth in a moderate-to-strong manner, except for | [ | ||||
| Disc diffusion | Ethanol, methanol | Leaves | Both extracts had the lowest antibiofilm impact on the tested strains | [ | ||
| Disc diffusion | Aqueous, ethanol | Leaves | On all of the studied strains, the MIC shows that the aqueous extract ranges from 12.8 to 8.3 mg/mL, whereas the ethanolic extract ranges from 13.5 to 8.8 mg/mL | [ | ||
| Agar well diffusion | Aqueous | Leaves | The extracts at 50 | [ | ||
| Diffusion assay | Fruits | This lipid fraction was active against the tested bacterial strains. At 2.6 mm, the fatty acid fraction had a lot of activity against it | [ | |||
| Disc diffusion | Methanol | Leaves, stem | At the concentration of 200 mg/mL recorded an inhibition zones of 16, 14, and 16 mm, respectively | [ | ||
| Agar well | Aqueous and methanolic | Leaves and seeds | Against five bacterial strains at varied doses of 25, 50, 100, and 200 mg/mL, respectively. At 25 mg/mL, no activity was recorded. The leaves aqueous had the maximum activity at 17.67 mm against | [ | ||
| Disc diffusion | Ethanol, petroleum ether, ethyl acetate | Leaf, seed, young stem, fruits, and root | It has moderate activity with the minimum inhibition at 6 and maximum at 10 mm, respectively | [ | ||
| Disc diffusion | Aqueous and ethanolic | Leaves and bark | Ethanolic bark inhibits higher inhibition with at 22 for | [ | ||
| MIC, MBC | Ethanol | Leaves | Have minimum inhibitory zone activity against bacteria, enteropathogenic | [ | ||
| Agar well | Ethanol | Leaves | At a dosage of ≥0.25 g/mL, it has antibacterial action and inhibits the bacteria | [ | ||
| Disc diffusion | Ethanol, methanolic | Leaves | The maximum inhibitory activity for | [ | ||
| Agar cup | Ethanolic | Leaves | MIC and MBC were 20 mg and 40 mg mL−1, respectively | [ | ||
| Well method | ||||||
| Agar well | Aqueous, ethanol | Leaves | The greatest rate of inhibition diameter against | [ | ||
| Agar plate diffusion and broth dilution | Aqueous | Stem bark | The extract showed efficacy against all organisms tested. Except for | [ | ||
| Agar well | Methanol and ethanol | Leaves | The activity of 2.5 percent NaOCl against | [ | ||
| In vitro, in vivo | Aqueous cold water and ethanol | Leaves | Significantly inhibited the growth of the tested strains at 95% | [ | ||
| Agar well | Aqueous ethanol | Bark | The maximum inhibition was recorded at 22 mm against | [ | ||
| Microtiter plate | Hot and aqueous | Leaves | With the concentration of 50 mg/mL, the results demonstrated the ability of the extract to prevent biofilm formation | [ | ||
| Disc diffusion | Leaves | Any inhibition below 6 mm was considered as no activity with 800 | [ | |||
| Agar well | Aqueous, ethanolic | Leaves | Ethanolic leaf extract exhibited the highest activity against | [ | ||
| Cup-plate agar diffusion | Petroleum ether, ethyl acetate, ethanol, methanol, and distilled water | Stem bark | Studies revealed that the methanolic extract at 100 mg/mL exhibited the highest activity of 25 mm. The extract reduced the development of all bacteria, with most extracts showing antimicrobial action on multiple levels | [ | ||
| Disc | Honey | Demonstrate a significant activity against the tested strain | [ | |||
| Aqueous | Leaves |
| [ | |||
| Agar well | Aqueous and ethanolic | Leaves | The aqueous extracts demonstrated a significant inhibition zone of 5.6 mm against | [ | ||
| Pour-plate method | Ziziphus honey | In most dilutions, the extract was higher after 120 hours of incubation for each of the tested strains. After 120 hours, the microbial count was reduced by 3–7.5 logs compared with the control | [ | |||
| Well diffusion methods | Aqueous | Fruits | AgNPs' inhibitory activity against all investigated human pathogenic microorganisms rose with fruit ripening progress from mature fruit to unripe fruit to immature fruit | [ | ||
| Cup-plate agar diffusion | Ethyl acetate | Whole plant | At the bacterial concentration of 1 mg/mL, the extract recorded the highest inhibition of 22 mm against | [ | ||
| Agar plate | Aqueous | Pulp | Study revealed increased sensitivity to | [ | ||
| Micro broth dilution | Aqueous | Essential oil | Inhibited the development of | [ | ||
| Microdilution method | Hot water and ethanol | Leaves | The ethanolic extract has the highest inhibition at 4 ± 1.03 | [ | ||
|
| ||||||
| 4 | Antifungal | Cup-plate agar diffusion | Petroleum ether, chloroform, methanol, and aqueous | Fruits, leaves, seeds, and stems | No activity recorded | [ |
| Ethanol | Leaves | In comparison with the control, cells treated with 150 | [ | |||
| Cup-plate agar diffusion | Petroleum ether, ethyl acetate, ethanol, methanol, and distilled water | Stem bark | Exhibited strong activity at concentration 100 mg/mL with an inhibition zone of 20 mm. These discoveries can be used to aid in the treatment of fungal illnesses | [ | ||
| Agar well diffusion | Ethanol and methanol | Leaves | According to the findings, the ethanolic extract possesses antifungal characteristics and can be utilized to treat fungal infections. More research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of this plant in treating candidiasis patients | [ | ||
| Micro broth dilution | Aqueous | Essential oil | In a dosage of 64 | [ | ||
| Agar well | Ethanol | Stem bark | Fungal strains with significant activity at | [ | ||
| Well diffusion | Aqueous | Honey | The microbiological strains were severely hampered. There were no resistant microbial strains, with the highest sensitivity at 36 mm | [ | ||
| Agar well | Aqueous, ethanolic | Leaves | At a dosage of 500 mg/mL, both ethanolic and aqueous extracts inhibited | [ | ||
| The study revealed increased sensitivity to the tested strain, indicating the antifungal activity of the extract | [ | |||||
| Agar plate diffusion and broth dilution | Aqueous | Stem bark | There was no inhibition at low doses, and it was susceptible above 600 mg/mL, implying that the extract has antifungal potential | [ | ||
| Agar well | Aqueous and ethanolic | Bark | The maximum inhibition was recorded at 17 mm | [ | ||
| Callus extract | Zinc and selenium oxide nanoparticles | Both crystals have antifungal activity against the tested strain, with SeONPs having greater antifungal activity than ZnONPs, according to the findings | [ | |||
| Agar cup well | Ethanolic | Leaves | No activity against the tested fungal strain | [ | ||
| Agar dilution | Aqueous | Leaves | The extracts were found to have action against | [ | ||
|
| Ethanol | Leaves | A shampoo containing the plant extract was then developed and tested on 80 people with dandruff for a period of four weeks. With the Sidr shampoo formulation, 86% of the participants reported significant improvement in their dandruff symptoms | [ | ||
| Plate agar method | Petroleum ether, chloroform, 80% ethanol, and aqueous | Leaves, fruits, and seeds | A significant activity was recorded from the extract | [ | ||
| Extracts were found to have antifungal efficacy against all fungi examined. These findings suggested that the extracts could be used as a substitute for chemical additives in the treatment of fungal diseases in plants | [ | |||||
| Ethanol | Leaves | When treated with the extract at a dosage of 20%, it failed to generate spores | [ | |||
| 96-well plates | Ethanol (80%, v/v) | Fruits (unripe and ripe) | The minimum inhibitory concentration 90 values for ripe and unripe fruits were 25 and 0.1 g/mL, respectively | [ | ||
| Agar diffusion | Methanolic | Leaves | No activity | [ | ||
|
| ||||||
| 5 | Antidiarrhoeal |
| Stem bark | The extract was shown to protect rats against castor oil-induced diarrhoea as well as reduce intraluminal fluid collection and gastrointestinal transit, according to the results. In mice, the intraperitoneal and oral LD50 values were 3465 and 1200 mg/kg, respectively | [ | |
|
| ||||||
| 6 | Antiparasitic |
| 70% ethanol | Leaves | Endothelial contraction was dose-dependent and substantial ( | [ |
| Aqueous | Leaves | At concentrations of 6, 25, 12.5, 25, 50, 100, and 200 mg/mL, the drug effective against Egyptian species of schistosomes | [ | |||
|
| 70% methanol | Leaves | As a result, the extract was shown to have antiapoptotic, antifibrotic, antioxidant, and protective properties against | [ | ||
| Aqueous | Leaves | The findings indicated that the extract at concentrations of 500, 250, and 125 | [ | |||
|
| 70% methanol | Leaves | In the 3rd, 4th, and 5th groups, oocyst shedding was dramatically reduced to roughly 10.7 × 103, 28.3 × 103, and 23.8 × 103 oocysts/g faeces, respectively | [ | ||
|
| Aqueous and methanolic | Leaves | On day 21 after treatment, the extract exhibited a decrease in egg count percent (EPG) in faeces of 61.5 and 78.7% at dosages of 100 mg/kg and 400 mg/kg. EPG of faeces decreased by 24.4, 73.1, and 85.1% at 100, 400, and 800 mg/kg dosages, respectively | [ | ||
| Methanolic | Leaves | The extract significantly reduced the viability of | [ | |||
| MTT assay | Methanolic, aqueous | Aqueous extracts had IC50 values of 60 and 80 | [ | |||
|
| 70% methanol | Leaves |
| [ | ||
|
| ||||||
| 7 | Antiviral | Plate agar method | Petroleum ether, chloroform, 80% ethanol, and aqueous | Leaves, fruits, and seeds | A significant activity was recorded from the extract | [ |
|
| Leaves | The leaf extract was effectively used to treat rashes on a 50-year-old man | [ | |||
|
| Ethanol | Leaves | Significantly reduced the growth of the rashes compared with the control group | [ | ||
|
| ||||||
| 8 | Antimalarial |
| 70% methanol | Leaves | The liver and spleen histopathology examinations revealed severe histological abnormalities. The histopathological appearance of the liver and spleen in treated animals improved significantly. Treatment resulted in a significant return of oxidative indicators to normal levels, according to biochemical analyses | [ |
|
| Leaves | To sum up, the findings suggest that the extract's antiplasmodial and antioxidant properties might help reduce the devastation caused by | [ | |||
|
| 70% methanol | Leaf | Had a considerable impact on liver function enzymes as well as histological images of the liver. It is possible to infer that the extracts protect against | [ | ||
|
| ||||||
| 9 | Antidiabetic | Alpha amylase and glucosidase assay | Methanol, ethanol | Leaves | The enzyme exhibited strong activity with methanolic extract against alpha-amylase and glucosidase at 8.9 and 39.12 | [ |
|
| Methanol | Leaves | At concentrations of 100 | [ | ||
|
| Ethanol | Leaves | Compared with the control group, diabetic rats had significantly lower glucose levels and significantly higher blood insulin levels. When compared with diabetic control and nondiabetic control rats, the treatment group demonstrated a significant reduction in triglycerides, indicating that it had a hypolipidemic impact | [ | ||
|
| Aqueous and methanolic | Leaves | Following therapy with 500 mg/kg, the highest activity at 25.59 and 39.48% after 7 and 15 days, respectively, was discovered at | [ | ||
|
| ||||||
| 10 | Antiobesity |
| Leaves | Improved liver and kidney function and lowered lipid peroxidation in hypercholesterolemic male rats treated with the extract. As a result of its high concentration of phenolic chemicals, the antihyperlipidemic effects of this extract might be linked to inhibition of oxidative stress | [ | |
|
| Aqueous | Seed | Biochemical and histological changes were reversed with the extract in G3 therapy. The extract lowered hypercholesterolemia, inhibited oxidative stress, and restored biochemical and histological characteristics that had been changed | [ | ||
|
| ||||||
| 11 | Antianxiety |
| Leaf | Administering the extract after HgCl2 exposure stopped mercury build-up in the cortical slices. As a result, the levels of malondialdehyde were reduced, as were those of nitrite and nitrate production and nitrite and nitrate creation enzymes. Glutathione levels were also boosted, as were those linked to the antioxidant enzymes glutathione reductase and glutathione peroxidase. Might be used to reduce the damage to neurons caused by HgCl2 poisoning | [ | |
| Rotarod testing was utilized to assess motor coordination. The raised plus maze's open-arm duration was dramatically lengthened when | [ | |||||
|
| Ethanol | Leaves | The leaf extract significantly reduces the expression of the indicators studied compared with the induction group. The extract may protect the male against pentylenetetrazole-induced harm | [ | ||
|
| ||||||
| 12 | Growth promoter |
| Leaves | The findings of this study could have supported the use of low doses of a 20 g SL/kg diet as natural growth promoters without affecting rabbit performance | [ | |
| R2 had significantly greater end weight and total growth ( | [ | |||||
|
| Leaves | Consumption level of 10%, the findings revealed that the treatment had a significant impact on broiler chicken output and mortality ( | [ | |||
|
| ||||||
| 13 | Insecticidal | Aqueous, methanol, ethanolic, and acetonic | Root | The extract has the strongest insecticidal potential when tested against | [ | |
|
| ||||||
| 14 | Anticancer | MTT assay | Methanol | Leaves | The IC50 of the extract for the RD cell line was 154.44 | [ |
| MTT assay | 70% ethanol | Leaves | On MCF7 cells, extracts had a cytotoxic impact. In MCF7 cells, 1 mg/mL dramatically boosted the expression of the Bax and Bcl-2 genes | [ | ||
| MTT | Aqueous | Leaves (silver nanoparticles) | Polysaccharides had an IC50 value of 1.5 mg/mL, but the IC50 value for polysaccharide-coated AgNPs was 0.705 mg/mL | [ | ||
| MTT | Ethanol, ethanol-aqueous, aqueous | Leaves | After forty-eight hours of administration, the ethanolic fraction had the lowest IC50 value of 0.02 mg/mL and triggered cell cycle arrest at the G1/S phase as well as apoptosis | [ | ||
|
| Methanolic | Leaves | Extract treatment of DENA-induced hepatocarcinoma alleviated all except cholangioma-induced abnormalities. Finally, ZSCL (300 mg/kg BM) showed a significant therapeutic effect against DENA-induced hepatocellular cancer by focusing on oxidative stress and oncogenes | [ | ||
| MTT assay | Hexane | Leaves | According to the findings of this study, the leaf extract contains chemicals with anticancer action, making it a promising target for further research to identify new anticancer drugs | [ | ||
|
| ||||||
| 15 | Toxicity |
| Aqueous | Stem bark | For the liver enzymes ALT, AST, ALK, serum protein, and albumin, biochemical examination revealed no significant difference between the different concentrations treated at 200, 400, and 800 mg/kg correspondingly and the control group. Furthermore, there was no significant variation in serum electrolytes ( | [ |
| Prophage F116 induction | Ethanol | Leaves | When compared with control, the employed concentrations at 5, 15, and 30 mg/mL did not reveal an increase in prophage induction. The mutagenic index revealed that the spontaneous release of phage from the lysogenic strains resulted in no increase in pfu/mL. As a result, the plant extracts evaluated have no genotoxic potential | [ | ||
|
| Ethanol | Root, bark | In both the short- and long-term studies, all rats survived at a limit dose of 3000 mg/kg. There was no mortality, although the rats in all groups showed evidence of sleepiness for about 1 to 2 hours | [ | ||
|
| Aqueous-methanol | Seeds | Lymphocytes, platelets, direct and total bilirubin, albumin, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, aspartate aminotransferase, serum Ca2+, creatinine, urea, and organ-body weight ratios were all significantly elevated at | [ | ||
| MTT assay | Ethanol | Stem bark | In HCT-116 and MCH-7 cell lines at a concentration of 50–400 g, the control cells had a high rate of proliferation, which was taken as 100% | [ | ||
| 1-BJ1 normal cells | Callus extract | Zinc and selenium oxide nanoparticles | Low toxicity was recorded. The particles show potential antibacterial and antioxidant actions and will be used to combat resistant microorganisms | [ | ||
| Fl-cells | Ethanol | Showed no toxicity | [ | |||
|
| Hydroalcoholic | Leaves | No serious side effect was observed | [ | ||
|
| Leaves | No changes in liver or kidney function were found after the juice was given to the animals. It was found that a dose of BHT (200 parts per million) significantly increased the enzyme activity and serum levels of all three products. | [ | |||
|
| Methanolic | Seeds | Phagocytic index values were the lowest in snails exposed to LC50 of the extracts. Results demonstrated no mortality in | [ | ||
|
| Aqueous | Leaf (AgNPs) | When compared with MeHg intoxication, AgNPs/MeHg caused a far larger increase in lipid peroxides as a marker of oxidative stress, and of course, compared with healthy control animals | [ | ||
|
| Ethanol | Leaves | The animal model received daily oral dosages of 50 to 200 mg/kg for 28 days. Biochemical tests comparing the extract's toxicity to that of a control group revealed no differences. However, oral administration of the extract at dosages of 100 and 200 mg/kg resulted in minor histologically detrimental effects on liver and kidney tissues | [ | ||
|
| Aqueous | Fruits | All biochemical indicators and histological images of the liver, kidney, and testis improved significantly in animals treated with the extract alone or in combination with AF. The extract may have a powerful function in protecting against aflatoxicosis | [ | ||
|
| Ethanol | Leaves | 14-day course of oral 400 mg/kg extract dose. Lactate dehydrogenase and total bilirubin levels in rats' blood were substantially elevated ( | [ | ||
|
| Aqueous | Pulp | There was no significant difference between the treatment group and the control group in terms of liver enzymes such as ALT, AST, ALK, serum protein, and serum albumin, according to the results of the biochemical study | [ | ||
| Aqueous, ethanol | Leaves | Both kinds of extracts in concentrations of 500 mg/mL showed no cytotoxicity towards red blood cells | [ | |||
| Aqueous | Leaves | Extract did not exhibit any morphological alterations from the control at MNTD values of 250, 350, and 300 | [ | |||
|
| Leaf | In addition, after HgCl2 poisoning, a shift in apoptotic proteins in favor of proapoptotic proteins was identified. However, combining the extract with HgCl2 considerably reduced the molecular, biochemical, and histological changes caused by HgCl2 intoxication. Our results imply that the extract might be utilized to reduce the effects of HgCl2 exposure on reproduction | [ | |||
|
| Ethanol | Leaves | The leaf extract has no harmful impact on the liver when administered at dosages below 1500 mg/kg BW. In conclusion, the hazardous dosage of leaf extract in white Wistar rats is over 4000 mg/kg BW | [ | ||
Note. MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration, MBC: minimum bacterial concentration, DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl, FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay.
Compounds reported from Z. spina.
| Compounds | Technique(s) | Quantity (%/ | Plant part (s) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyclopeptides | ||||
| Mauritine F | UHPLC-PDA-ESI-MS | Leaves | [ | |
| Sanjonine F | ||||
| Sanjonine B | ||||
| Lotusanine A/frangulanine | ||||
| Jubanine C | ||||
| Adouetine Z | ||||
| Scutianine A | ||||
| Oxyphyline A | UHPLC-PDA-ESI-MS | Leaves | [ | |
| HPLC-DAD-MS and HPLC-PDA-(HRMS)-SPE-NMR | Stem bark | [ | ||
| Spinanine-A | MS, UV, IR | Stem bark | [ | |
| Mauritine A | MS, IR, PMR, co-TLC, and optical rotation | Bark | [ | |
| Mauritine C | ||||
| Amphibine F | ||||
| Amphibine E | ||||
| Amphibine A | ||||
| Saponins | ||||
| Christinin A | MS, IR, and NMR | Leaves | [ | |
| Christinin C | ||||
| Christinin D | ||||
| Christinin B | UHPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS, IR, and NMR | Leaves | [ | |
| Christinin A/C | ||||
| Christinin A2 | NMR and HRESIMS/UHPLC-PDA-ESI-MS | Leaves | [ | |
| Jujubogenin-3-O-(di-deoxyhexosyl)-hexoside | UHPLC-PDA-ESI-MS | Leaves | [ | |
| Jujubasaponin II/III isomer | ||||
| Polyphenols | ||||
| 3′,5′-di-C- | NMR and HRESIMS | Leaves | [ | |
| HPLC–PDA–MS and NMR | Fruits | [ | ||
| Hexaacetyl (+)-gallocatechin | NMR | Leaves | [ | |
| Hexaacetyl (-)-epigallocatechin | ||||
| Kaempferol 3-O-robinobioside | NMR and HRESIMS | Leaves | [ | |
| HPLC-PDA-MS and NMR | Fruits | [ | ||
| Rutin | HPLC/LC-MS/MS/UV and NMR | Leaves | [ | |
| Spinosin | HPLC | Leaves | [ | |
| Ellagic acid | ||||
| Isoquercetrin | ||||
| Apigenin | ||||
| Kaempferol | ||||
| Kaempferol 3-O-rutinoside | NMR and HRESIMS | Leaves | [ | |
| HPLC-PDA-MS and NMR | Fruits | [ | ||
| Gallocatechin | HPLC | Leaves | [ | |
| Epigallocatechin | NMR and HRESIMS | [ | ||
| Quercetin 3-O- | NMR, HRESIMS/HPLC-PDA-MS, and NMR | Leaves | [ | |
| Fruits | [ | |||
| Quercetin 3-O- | NMR and HRESIMS | Leaves | [ | |
| Quercetin 3-O- | ||||
| Prodelphinidin | ||||
| Quercetin 3-O-robinobioside | HPLC-PDA-MS and NMR | Fruits | [ | |
| Quercetin 3-O- | ||||
| Quercetin 3-O- | ||||
| Quercetin 3-O- | ||||
| Quercetin 3-O- | ||||
| Naringenin-6,8-di-C-hexoside | UHPLC-PDA-ESI-MS | Leaves | [ | |
| Quercetin-3-O-[(2-hexosyl)-6-rhamnosyl]-hexoside | ||||
| (Epi)catechin-di-C-hexoside | ||||
| Quercetin-3-O-robinoside | ||||
| Bayarin | ||||
| Quercetin-3-O-hexoside | ||||
| Quercetin-3-O-(2-pentosyl-rhamnoside)-4′-O-rhamnoside | ||||
| Quercetin-3-O-(4-O- | ||||
| Quercetin 3-O-rutinoside | UHPLC-PDA-ESI-MS, HPLC-PDA-MS, and NMR | Leaves | [ | |
| Fruits | [ | |||
| Quercetin 3-xylosyl-(1⟶2) rhamnoside-4′-rhamnoside | UV and NMR | Leaves | [ | |
| Quercitrin | ||||
| Gallic acid | HPLC | Leaves | [ | |
| HPLC-DAD | 5.09 ± 1.23 | Pulp | [ | |
| 13.38 ± 1.66 | Seed | |||
| 3.00 ± 0.84 | Almond | |||
| Catechin | HPLC | Leaves | [ | |
| HPLC-DAD | 1.28 ± 1.66 | Pulp | [ | |
| 10.98 ± 2.78 | Seed | |||
| Procyanidin B2 | HPLC-DAD | 63.22 ± 10.21 | Pulp | [ |
| 425.44 ± 11.35 | Seed | |||
| Chlorogenic acid | HPLC | Leaves | [ | |
| HPLC-DAD | 33.80 ± 2.66 | Pulp | [ | |
| 15.0 ± 4.88 | Seed | |||
| 8.0 ± 1.77 | Almond | |||
| Cyanidin-3-galactosidase | HPLC-DAD | 36.77 ± 4.12 | Pulp | [ |
| 131.78 ± 12.78 | Seed | |||
| 22.85 ± 2.60 | Almond | |||
| Caffeic acid | HPLC | Leaves | [ | |
| HPLC-DAD | 52.19 ± 17.02 | Pulp | [ | |
| 576.33 ± 23.19 | Seed | |||
| 2.78 ± 0.92 | Almond | |||
| Anthocyanin | HPLC-DAD | 1.27 ± 0.78 | Pulp | [ |
| 586.09 ± 34.77 | Seed | |||
| Epicatechin | HPLC | Leaves | [ | |
| HPLC-DAD | 11.33 ± 1.56 | Pulp | [ | |
| 73.66 ± 12.66 | Seed | |||
| Cyanidin-3-rutinoside | HPLC-DAD | 10.27 ± 0.80 | Pulp | [ |
| 43.88 ± 15.03 | Seed | |||
|
| HPLC-DAD | 113.45 ± 11.30 | Seed | [ |
| Vanillic acid | 13.79 ± 1.09 | |||
| Syringic acid | HPLC | Leaves | [ | |
| HPLC-DAD | 269.55 ± 22.89 | Pulp | [ | |
| 210.04 ± 28.66 | Seed | |||
| Ferulic acid | HPLC-DAD | 125.22 ± 11.67 | Pulp | [ |
| Sinapic acid | HPLC-DAD | 171.88 ± 31.02 | Pulp | [ |
| 119.78 ± 10.55 | Seed | |||
| 185.67 ± 12.67 | Almond | |||
| Naringin | HPLC-DAD | 1.23 ± 0.12 | Pulp | [ |
| 2.78 ± 0.78 | Seed | |||
| Rosmarinic acid | HPLC-DAD | 222.18 ± 34.89 | Pulp | [ |
| 560.08 ± 35.28 | Seed | |||
| Hyperin | UV and NMR | Leaves | [ | |
| HPLC-DAD | 1.18 ± 0.19 | Pulp | [ | |
| 2.11 ± 0.73 | Seed | |||
| Avicularoside | HPLC-DAD | 19.23 ± 1.37 | Seed | [ |
| Resveratrol | HPLC-DAD | 19.33 ± 4.86 | Pulp | [ |
| 22.60 ± 2.82 | Seed | |||
| Quercetin | HPLC/NMR and HRESIMS | Leaves | [ | |
| HPLC-DAD | 25.08 ± 1.83 | Pulp | [ | |
| 31.78 ± 6.88 | Seed | |||
| Volatile compounds | ||||
|
| GC-MS | 5.63 | Leaves | [ |
| 5-Phenylundecane | GC-MS | 10.88 | Fruits | [ |
| 4-Phenylundecane | 5.97 | |||
| 3-Phenylundecane | 5.41 | |||
| 2-Phenylundecane | 8.39 | |||
| 6-Phenyldodecane | 14.90 | |||
| 4-Phenyldodecane | 5.51 | |||
| 3-Phenyldodecane | 4.67 | |||
| 2-Phenyldodecane | 5.41 | |||
| 6-Phenyltridecane | 11.38 | |||
| 2-Phenyltridecane | 4.06 | |||
| Phytol | GC-MS | 16.17 | Leaves | [ |
| Palmitic acid | 24.66 | |||
| Oleic acid, omega 9 | 11.12 | |||
| Palmitoleic acid, methyl ester | GC-MS | 4.84 | Leaves | [ |
| 7-Octadecenoic acid, methyl ester | GC-MS, IR | 19.63 | Seeds | [ |
| Methyl stearate | 28.11 | |||
| Cis-11-eicosenoic acid, methyl ester | 16.97 | |||
| Eicosanoic acid, methyl ester | 4.97 | |||
| Docosanoic acid, methyl ester | 10.76 | |||
| 8.60 | ||||
| Geranyl acetone | GC and GC-MS | 14.0 | Leaves | [ |
| Methyl hexadecanoate | 10.0 | |||
| Methyl octadecenoate | 9.9 | |||
| Farnesyl acetone | 9.9 | |||
| Hexadecanol | 9.7 | |||
| Ethyl octadecenoate | 8.0 | |||
| Ethyl hexadecanoate | 4.3 | |||
| Trihydroxy-octadecadienoic acid | UHPLC-PDA-ESI-MS | Leaves | [ | |
| Dihydroxydodecadienoic acid | ||||
| Trihydroxy-octadecenoic acid | ||||
| Amino-hexadecanediol | ||||
| Amino-methyl; heptadecantriol | ||||
| 2-Amino-1,3-octadecanediol | ||||
| Octadecatetraenoic acid | ||||
| Triterpenic acid | ||||
| Oleanonic acid/bitulonic acid | UHPLC-PDA-ESI-MS | Leaves | [ | |
| Ceanothic acid | ||||
| Ceanothic acid isomer | ||||
| 3-o-z-p-coumaroylalphitolic acid/3-o-z-p-coumaroylmaslinic acid | ||||
| Betulinic acid | ||||
| Alphitolic acid/maslinic acid | ||||
| Zizyberanalic acid/pomonic acid | ||||
| Other compounds | ||||
| Phloretin 3′/5′ di-c-galactoside | LC/ESI/MS | Fruits | [ | |
| Phloretin 3′-c-glucoside 5′-c-galactoside | ||||
| Cis-5-o-p-coumaroylquinic acid | ||||
| Diosmetin 3′-c-galactoside 7-o-rutinoside | ||||
| Diosmetin 3′-o-glucoside 7-o-rutinoside | ||||
| Trans-5-o-caffeoylquinic acid | ||||
| Trans-5-o-p-coumaroylquinic acid |
Figure 3Some of the major compounds from Z. spina parts. (a) Kaempferol-3-O-rhamnoside. (b) Jujuboside B1. (c) Myricetin-3-O-(6-rhamnosyl) hexoside. (d) Quercetin-3-O-[(2-hexonyl)-6-rhamnosyl]-hexoside. (e) Quercetin-3-O-p-coumaroyl (2,6-dirhamnosyl)-hexoside. (f) Kaempferol-3-O-(4-O-(p)-coumaroyl)-2-rhamnosyl-[6-rhamnosyl]-galactoside. (g) Quercetin-3-O-(4-O-p-coumaroyl)-2-rhamnosyl-[6-rhamnosyl]-glucoside. (h) Kaempferol-3-O-(4-O-p-coumaroyl)-2-rhamnosyl-[6-rhamnosyl]-glucoside. (i) Quercetin 3-O-[4-carboxy-3-hydroxy-3-methylbutanoyl]-(6)-hexoside.
Quantitative phytochemical data of Z. spina.
| Plant part | Extract/fraction | Class of compounds | Quantity (%/mg/g/ | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaves | Methanol extract | Polyphenols (GAE) | 74.6–58.7 | [ |
| Flavonoids (QE) | 64.2–47.3 | |||
| Leaves | Methanol extract | Quercetin | 1.39–3.66 | [ |
| Saponin | 1.80–2.6 | |||
| Leaves | Methanol extract | Total flavonoids (RE) | 710 ± 28.5 | [ |
| Total phenolic content (GAE) | 500 ± 10.5 | |||
| Roots | Aqueous extract | Total phenolic content (GAE) | 59.89 ± 0.42 | [ |
| Methanol extract | Total flavonoid content (QE) | 9.01 ± 0.01 | ||
| Ethanol extract | Catechin content (CE) | 12.28 ± 1.07 | ||
| Acetone extract | Total phenolic content (GAE) | 59.98 ± 0.1 | ||
| Total flavonoid content (QE) | 9.45 ± 0.03 | |||
| Catechin content (CE) | 19.6 ± 0.19 | |||
| Total phenolic content (GAE) | 60.47 ± 0.04 | |||
| Total flavonoid content (QE) | 12.04 ± 0.04 | |||
| Catechin content (CE) | 23.98 ± 0.38 | |||
| Total phenolic content (GAE) | 60.26 ± 0.16 | |||
| Total flavonoid content (QE) | 11.64 ± 0.02 | |||
| Catechin content (CE) | 17.14 ± 2.01 | |||
| Aerial part | Methanol extract | Phenolics (GAE) | 51.33 ± 0.4 | [ |
| Flavonoids (QE) | 14.78 ± 0.36 | |||
| Tannins (CE) | 21.6 ± 1.51 | |||
| Honey | Total phenolic (CE) | 98.46 ± 2.24 | [ | |
| Pulp | Aqueous extract | Total phenolic content (GAE) | 30.97 ± 0.67 | [ |
| Total flavonoid content (RE) | 5.05 ± 1.09 | |||
| Seed | Total phenolic content (GAE) | 74.46 ± 2.12 | ||
| Total flavonoid content (RE) | 19.84 ± 1.56 | |||
| Almond | Total phenolic content (GAE) | 31.05 ± 1.30 | ||
| Total flavonoid content (RE) | 8.65 ± 0.78 | |||
| Honey | Total phenolic content (GAE) | 20.15 ± 2.79–21.98 ± 0.70 | [ | |
| Leaves | 80% methanol extract | Total phenolic content (GAE) | 87.3 ± 4.7 | [ |
| Total flavonoid content (QE) | 9.6 ± 1.1 |
Note. GAE = gallic acid equivalent, QE = quercetin equivalent, RE = rutin equivalent, CE = catechin equivalent.