Article Sidebar

Submitted
November 1, 2015
Accepted
November 1, 2015
Published
November 1, 2015
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 369 Download : 199

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The present study evaluates in-vitro cytotoxic activity of active extracts of medicinal plants. It evaluates anti-cancer activity of most active extracts of I. pes-caprae and C. roseus. This study focuses on the total phenol content and the total flavanoid content of the plant and searches into its medicinal potency based on the total phenol and total flavanoid content. The anti-cancer activity of the extract is found to be more significant than one another.


The cytotoxic activity of Ipomoea pes-caprae and C. roseus showed better results. Methanol extracts of aerial and root of Ipomoea pes-caprae possess maximum anticancer activity is found to be 61.77% and 65.55%. Chloroform extract of Catharanthus roseus root was also active against MCF- 7 cells by exhibiting 64.34% of activity. These plants may be a source of new antibiotic compounds.These findings enriches our knowledge of the chemical constituents that are responsible for the medicinal uses of the plant and the anti-cancer potential of selected plants.

Keywords

I.pes-caprae C.roseus phytochemicals cytotoxic MTT assay

Article Details

License

Authors retain the copyright without restrictions for their published content in this journal. GCTL is a Sherpa Romeo Journal. 

Publishing License

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of  Creative Commons License

How to Cite
Robert, P. E., & Retna, A. M. (2015). QUANTITATIVE PHYTOCHEMICAL DETERMINATIONS AND IN-VITRO CYTOTOXIC ACTIVITY OF MEDICINAL PLANTS. Green Chemistry & Technology Letters, 1(01), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.18510/gctl.2015.113
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Newman DJ, Cragg GM., J. Nat. Prod., 70, 461-77, (2007). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/np068054v
  2. Haridas C, Arntzen J, Gutterman A., PNAS., 98, 11557-11562, (2001). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.191363498
  3. Mantle D, Lennard TW, Pickering AT., Adverse Drug Reaciont.Toxicol. Rev., 19, 223-40, (2000).
  4. Wani MC, Taylor HL, Wall ME, Coggon P, McPhail AT., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 93, 190-198, (1971). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00738a045
  5. Premanathan M, Nakashima H, Kathiresan K, Rajendran N, Yamamoto N., Indian J. Medical Research, 130, 276-279, (1996).
  6. Parekh KK, Patel AM, Modi AJ, Chandrashekhar HR., Pharmacologia, 3, 377-386, (2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5567/pharmacologia.2012.377.386
  7. Aslam J, Khan SH, Siddiqui ZH, Fatima Z, Maqsood M, Bhat MA., Int. J. Comp. Pharm., 4, 1−16, (2010).
  8. Ethalsha P and Malar Retna A, International Journal of Natural Products Research, 4, 58-64 (2014).
  9. Mc Donald S, Prenzler PD, Autolovich M, Robards K., Food Chemistry, 73, 73-84, (2001). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(00)00288-0
  10. Chang C, Yang M, Wen H., Journal of Food and Drug Analysis, 10, 178-182, (2002).
  11. Mosmann T., J. Immun. Methods, 65, 55–63, (1983). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1759(83)90303-4
  12. Hamelers IHL, Richard FMA, Schaik V, Sussenbach JS, Steengergh PH., Cancer cell. Int., 3, 10, (2003). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2867-3-10
  13. Ferguson PJ, Kurowska E, Freeman DJ, Chambers AF, Koropatnick DJ., J. Nutr., 134, 1529-1535, (2004). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/134.6.1529
  14. Fotakis G, Timbrell JA., Toxicol . Lett., 160, 171-177, (2006). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2005.07.001
  15. Bibi Y, Nisa S, Waheed A, Zia M, Sarwar S1, Ahmed S, and Chaudhary MF., Afr. J. Biotech., 9, 5611-5615, (2010).
  16. Mothana RAA, Abdo SAA, Hasson S, Althawab FMN, Alghbari SAZ, Lindequist U., eCAM., 7, 323-330, (2010). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ecam/nen004