Antioxidant Activity

View with images and charts

Antioxidant Activity

Introduction

The largest parts of the diseases are mainly linked to oxidative stress due to free radicals (Gutteridgde, 1995). Antioxidants can interact with the oxidation process by reacting with free radicals, chelation, catalyzing metals, and also by acting as oxygen scavengers (Buyukokuroglu et al., 2001).

Literature reviews have shown that there was much effort to invent medicine to overcoming the death. But until recently the actual cause of aging was not known. There is considerable recent evidence that free radical induce oxidative damage to biomolecules. This damage causes aging, diabetes, cancer, malaria, neurodegenerative diseases and other pathological events in living organisms (Halliwell et al. 1992). Antioxidants which scavenge free radicals are known to posses an important role in preventing these free radical induced-diseases. There is an increasing interest in the antioxidant effects of compounds derived from plants, which could be relevant in relations to their nutritional incidence and their role in health and diseases (Steinmetz et al., 1996; Aruoma, 1998; Bandoniene et al., 2000; Pieroni et al., 2002; Couladis et al., 2003). A number of reports on the isolation and testing of plant derived antioxidants have been described during the past decade. Natural antioxidants constitute a broad range of substances including phenolic or nitrogen containing compounds and carotenoids (Shahidi et al., 1992; Velioglu et al., 1998; Pietta et al., 1998). The medicinal properties of plants have been investigated throughout the world, due to their potent antioxidant activities, minimum or no side effects and economic viability (Auudy et al., 2003).

Lipid peroxidation is one of the main reasons for deterioration of food products during processing and storage. Synthetic antioxidant such as tert-butyl-1-hydroxitoluene (TBHT), tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ), butylated hydroxianisole (BHA) and propyl gallate (PG) are widely used as food additives to increase shelf life, especially lipid and lipid containing products by retarding the process of lipid peroxidation. However, TBHT and BHA are known to have not only toxic and carcinogenic effects on humans (Ito et al. ,1986; Wichi, 1988), but also abnormal effects on enzyme systems (Inatani et al. 1983). Thus, the interest in natural antioxidant, especially of plant origin, has greatly increased in recent years (Jayaprakasha et al., 2000). Plant polyphenols have been studied largely because of the possibility that they might underlie the protective effects afforded by fruit and vegetable intake against cancer and others chronic diseases (Elena et al., 2006).

Antioxidants: The free radical scavengers

Oxygen is the highest necessary substance for human life. But it is a Jeckyl and Hyde (both pleasant and unpleasant) element. We need it for critical body functions, such as respiration and immune response, but the element’s dark side is a reactive chemical nature that can damage body cells. The perpetrators of this “oxidative damage” are various oxygen-containing molecules, most of which are different types of free radicals—unstable, highly energized molecules that contain an unpaired electron.

Since stable chemical bonds require electron pairs, free radicals generated in the body steal electrons from nearby molecules, damaging vital cell components and body tissues. Oxidative damage in the body is akin to the browning of freshly cut apples, fats going rancid, or rusting of metal. Certain substances known as antioxidants, however, can help prevent this kind of damage. The following section describes the special relationship between oxidative damage, antioxidant protection and diabetes (Internet IV-I).

Oxidative Damage

Free radicals and other ‘reactive oxygen species’ are formed by a variety of normal processes within the body (including respiration and immune and inflammatory responses) as well as by elements outside the body, such as air pollutants, sunlight, and radiation. Whatever their sources, reactive oxygen species can promote damage that is link to increased risk of a variety of diseases and even to the aging process itself.

Oxidative damage to LDL (low-density lipoprotein or “bad cholesterol”) particles in the blood is believed to be a key factor in the progression of heart disease. Oxidative damage to fatty nerve tissue is linked to increased risk of various nervous system disorders, including Parkinson’s disease. Free radical damage to DNA can alter genetic material in the cell nucleus and, as a result, increase cancer risk. Oxidative damage has also been linked to arthritis and inflammatory conditions, shock and trauma, kidney disease, multiple sclerosis, bowel diseases, and diabetes (Internet- IV-II).

Antioxidant Protection

As a defense against oxidative damage, the body normally maintains a variety of mechanisms to prevent such damage while allowing the use of oxygen for normal functions. Such “antioxidant protection” derives from sources both inside the body (endogenous) and outside the body (exogenous). Endogenous antioxidants include molecules and enzymes that neutralize free radicals and other reactive oxygen species, as well as metal-binding proteins that sequester iron and copper atoms (which can promote certain oxidative reactions, if free). The body also makes several key antioxidant enzymes that help “recycle,” or regenerate, other antioxidants (such as vitamin C and vitamin E) that have been altered by their protective activity.

Exogenous antioxidants obtained from the diet also play an important role in the body’s antioxidant defense. These include vitamin C, vitamin E, carotenoids such as beta-carotene and lycopene, and other plant nutrients, or substances found in fruits, vegetables, and other plant foods that provide health benefits. Vitamin C (ascorbic acid), which is water-soluble, and vitamin E (tocopherol), which is fat-soluble, are especially effective antioxidants because they quench a variety of reactive oxygen species and are quickly regenerated back to their active form after they neutralize free radicals.

Morever, recent years have witnessed a renewed interest in plants as pharmaceuticals. This interest has been focused particularly on the adoption of extracts of plants, for self-medication by the general people. Within this context, considerable interest has arisen in the possibility that the impact of several major diseases may be either ameliorated or prevented by improving the dietary intake of natural nutrients with antioxidant properties, such as vitamin E, vitamin C, b-carotene and plant phenolics like tannins and flavonoids. The use of plant extracts in traditional medicine by old Indian and Chinese people have been going on from ancient time. Herbalism and folk medicine, both ancient and modern, have been the source of much useful therapy (Rashid et al., 1997).

The purpose of this study was to evaluate extractives as well as isolated compounds as new potential sources of natural antioxidants and phenolic compounds.

Antioxidant activity: DPPH assay

Principle

The free radical scavenging activities (antioxidant capacity) of thecccccc plant extracts on the persistent radical 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) were estimated by the method of Brand-Williams et al., 1995.

Here 2.0 ml of a methanol solution of the extract at different concentration were mixed with 3.0 ml of a DPPH methanol solution (20 mg/ml). The antioxidant potential was assayed from the bleaching of purple colored methanol solution of DPPH radical by the plant extract as compared to that of tert-butyl-1-hydroxytoluene (TBHT) by a UV spectrophotometer. The reaction mechanism is shown below:

  • DPPH = 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl

Color variation of DPPH solution after samples treatment

Materials and Methods

DPPH was used to evaluate the free radical scavenging activity (antioxidant potential) of various compounds and medicinal plants (Choi et al., 2000; Desmarchelier et al., 1997).

Materials and preparation of materials

2,2-diphenyl-1-picryldrazyl (DPPH)Beaker (100 & 200 ml)
tert-butyl-1-hydroxytoluene (TBHT)Test tube
Ascorbic acidLight-proof box
Distilled waterPipette (5 ml)
MethanolMicropipette (50-200 ml)
UV-spectrophotometerAmber reagent bottle
Beaker (100 & 200 ml)Weighing balance
Test tubeExts. of related plant

Table 4.1: Test samples of experimental plants

Plant/

compounds

Test samplesCodeAmount (mg)
A. paniculataEthanol soluble aerial part extract (crude)ESAE2.00
n-Hexane soluble partitionate of ESAEHXSP2.00
Carbon tetrachloride soluble partitionate of ESAECTSP2.00
Dichloromethane soluble partitionate of ESAEDMSP2.00
Aqueous soluble partitionate of ESAEAQSP2.00
A. chinensisMethanol soluble bark extract (crude)MSBE2.00
n-Hexane soluble partitionate of MSBEHXSP2.00
Carbon tetrachloride soluble partitionate of MSBECTSP2.00
Chloroform soluble partitionate of MSBECFSP2.00
Aqueous soluble partitionate of MSBEAQSP2.00
S. sesbanMethanol soluble leaves extractMSLE2.00
Pet. ether soluble partitionate of MSLEPESP2.00
Carbon tetrachloride soluble partitionate of MSBECTSP2.00
Chloroform soluble partitionate of MSBECFSP2.00
Aqueous soluble partitionate of MSBEAQSP2.00
M. oleiferaMethanol soluble bark extract (crude)MSLE2.00
n-Hexane soluble partitionate of MSLEHXSP2.00
Carbon tetrachloride soluble partitionate of MSLECTSP2.00
Dichloromethane soluble partitionate of MSLEDMSP2.00
Aqueous soluble partitionate of MSLEAQSP2.00
From S. sesban3,7-Dihydroxy oleanolic acid (104)SS-021.0

Control preparation for antioxidant activity measurement

Ascorbic acid and tert-butyl-1-hydroxytoluene (TBHT) were used as positive control. Calculated amount of ascorbic acid or TBHT was dissolved in methanol to get a mother solution having concentration of 1000 µg/ml. Serial dilution was made using the mother solution to get different concentrations ranging from 500.0 to 0.977 µg/ml.

DPPH solution preparation

20 mg DPPH powder was weighed and dissolved in methanol to get a DPPH solution having a concentration 20 µg/ml. The solution was prepared in the amber colored reagent bottle and kept in the light proof box.

Test sample preparation

Calculated amount of different extractives were measured and dissolved in methanol to get a mother solution (1000 µg/ml). Serial dilution of the mother solution provided different concentrations from 500.0 to 0.977 µg/ml which were kept in the dark flasks.

Methods

  • 2.0 ml of a methanol solution of the extract at different concentration (500 to 0.977 mg/ml) were mixed with 3.0 ml of a DPPH methanol solution (20 mg/ml).
  • After 30 min of reaction period at room temperature in dark place, the absorbance was measured at 517 nm against methanol as blank by using a suitable spectrophotometer.
  • Inhibition of free radical DPPH in percent (I%) was calculated as follows: (I%) = (1 – Asample/Ablank) ´ 100

Where Ablank is the absorbance of the control reaction (containing all reagents except the test material).

  • Extract concentration providing 50% inhibition (IC50) was calculated from the graph plotted by inhibition percentage against extract/compound concentration (Figure 4.1).

The experiments were carried out in triplicate and the result was expressed as mean ± SD in every cases.

Calculation of IC50 value from the graph plotted inhibition percentage against extract concentration
Figure 4.1: Schematic representation of the method of assaying free radical scavenging activity

Results and Discussion

Andrographis paniculata

Different partitionates of ethanolic extract of the aerial part of A. paniculata were subjected to free radical scavenging activity assay by the method of Brand –Williams et al., 1995. Here, tert-butyl-1-hydroxytoluene (TBHT) was used as reference standard.

In this investigation, the dichloromethane soluble partitionate (DMSP) of crude ethanolic extract (ESAE) showed the highest free radical scavenging activity with IC50 value 19.33 µg/ml. At the same time the carbon tetrachloride soluble partitionate (CTSP) also exhibit moderate antioxidant potential having IC50 values 21.25 and 23.79 µg/ml, respectively. The IC50 value for the TBHT was found to be 15.08 µg/ml (Table 4.2, Figure 4.2).

Table 4.2: List of IC50 values and equation of regression lines of standard and the test samples of A. paniculata

Test samplesIC50 (µg/ml)#Equation of Regression lineR2
TBHT15.08 ± 0.52y = 14.666Ln(x) + 10.2020.946
ESAE23.79 ± 1.17y = 11.135Ln(x) + 14.7060.9727
HXSP52.26 ± 2.1y = 8.796Ln(x) + 15.1940.9341
CTSP21.25 ± 0.59y = 7.1105Ln(x) + 28.2620.9773
DMSP19.33 ± 1.08y = 10.469Ln(x) + 18.9880.976
AQSP36.6 ± 1.63y = 9.9965Ln(x) + 14.0050.9658

#The values of IC50 are expressed as mean±SD (n=3)

Figure 4.2: Chart for IC50 values of standard and different extractives of A. paniculata

Table 4.3: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of tert-butyl-1-hydroxytoluene (TBHT)

Abs of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4..3: Chart for IC50 value of tert-butyl-1-hydroxytoluene (TBHT)
0.4355000.02993.41815.08
2500.02893.671
1250.06185.993
62.50.0979.241
31.250.14566.468
15.6250.22847.386
7.81250.30629.452
3.906250.34321.013
1.9531250.34420.797
0.97656250.35418.548

Table 4.4: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of ESAE (crude) of A. paniculata

Abs of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extrac

%

Inhibition

IC50 (mg/ml)Figure 4.4: Chart for IC50 value of ethanol extract of A. paniculata
0.4355000.07283.2323.79
2500.09179.193
1250.12072.243
62.50.16661.756
31.250.21351.102
15.6250.27237.2448
7.81250.27935.7469
3.906250.31128.3571
.9531250.33822.1938
0.97656250.34520.6632

Table 4.5: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of HXSP of A. paniculata

Abs of BlankConc

(mg/ml)

Abs of Extract%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.5: Chart for IC50 value of HXSP of A. paniculata
0.4355000.10875.115252.26
2500.13768.4285
1250.18457.6692
62.50.22548.1243
31.250.27137.5576
15.6250.29232.7188
7.81250.30130.6451
3.906250.30529.7235
1.9531250.32126.0368
0.97656250.35518.2027

Table 4.6: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of CTSP of A. paniculata

Abs of BlankConc

(mg/ml)

Abs of Extract%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.6: Chart for IC50 value of CTSP of A. paniculata
0.4355000,09372.620621.25
2500.10568.8619
1250.12361.4271
62.50.16858.3791
31.250.17753.2727
15.6250.19844.1243
7.81250.22443.5057
3.906250.24940.7586
1.9531250.30829.1954
0.97656250.30230.5747

Table 4.7: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of DMSP of A. paniculata

Abs of BlankConc

(mg/ml)

Abs of Extract%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.7: Chart for IC50 value of DMSP of A. paniculata
0.4355000.06585.057471319.33
2500.09578.1609195
1250.12371.7241379
62.50.13462.7586
31.250.19751.5287102
15.6250.25242.0689655
7.81250.26638.8505747
3.906250.28534.4827586
1.9531250.30230.5747126
0.97656250.31128.46731

Table 4.8: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of AQSP of A. paniculata

Abs of BlankConc

(mg/ml)

Abs of Extract%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.8: Chart for IC50 value of AQSP of A. paniculata
0.4355000.09777.70114936.6
2500.12271.954023
1250.13564.769433
62.50.20353.333333
31.250.24343.133934
15.6250.27536.781609
7.81250.29232.873563
3.906250.30729.425287
1.9531250.32325.747126
0.97656250.33123.904701

4.3.2 Anthocephalus chinensis

Free radical scavenging activities of different partitionates of A. chinensis have been examined. The obtained results have been listed in Table 4.9. The IC50 value for the standard (TBHT) was found to be 15.08 mg/ml. Methanol soluble extract and aqueous soluble materials exhibit significant antioxidant capacity having IC50 value of 22.68 mg/ml and 24.54 mg/ml (Table 4.9, Figure 4.9).

Table 4.9: List of IC50 values and equation of regression lines of standard and test samples of A. chinensis

Test samplesIC50 (µg/ml)#Equation of Regression lineR2
TBHT15.08 ± 0.52y = 14.666Ln(x) + 10.2020.946
MSBE22.68 ± 1.12y = 14.405Ln(x) + 5.02870.9426
HXSP157.15 ± 2.08y = 10.108Ln(x) – 1.12720.853
CTSP53.37 ± 0.68y = 10.535Ln(x) + 8.09220.9457
CFSP27.21 ± 2.3y = 11.3Ln(x) + 12.6610.9738
AQSP24.54 ± 1.47y = 12.022Ln(x) + 11.5180.9629

#The values of IC50 are expressed as mean±SD (n=3)

Figure 4.9: Chart for IC50 values of the standard and extractives of A. chinensis

Table 4.10: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of MSBE (crude) of A. chinensis

Abs of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.10: Chart for IC50 value of MSBE of A. chinensis
0.4355000.05487.58620722.68
2500.06086.2068
1250.06485.2873
62.50.13568.9655
31.250.21650.3448
15.6250.24643.4482
7.81250.32225.977
3.906250.34520.6896
1.9531250.33522.9885
0.97656250.35418.4739

Table 4.11: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of HXSP of A. chinensis

Abs.of

Blank

Conc.

(mg/ml)

Abs. of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.11: Chart for IC50 value of HXSP of A. chinensis
0.4355000.13070.09152157.15
2500.15165.39032
1250.25541.30817
62.50.28933.563
31.250.28734.022
15.6250.37713.333
7.81250.39010.344
3.906250.37813.103
1.9531250.39110.114
0.97656250.39010.344

Table 4.12: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of CTSP of A. chinensis

Abs.of

Blank

Conc.

(mg/ml)

Abs.of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50 (mg/ml)Figure 4.12: Chart for IC50 value of CTSP of A. chinensis
0.4355000.12671.016453.37
2500.13668.7356
1250.16761.6091
62.50.18457.6252
31.250.28933.5632
15.6250.28933.5632
7.81250.29532.1839
3.906250.30829.1954
1.9531250.38711.0344
0.97656250.3988.5057

Table 4.13: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of CFSP of A. chinensis

Abs.of

Blank

Conc.

(mg/ml)

Abs.of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.13: Chart for IC50 value of CFSP of A. chinensis
0.4355000.08580.287327.21
2500.12172.1724
1250.13868.2754
62.50.15464.5977
31.250.20253.5517
15.6250.25142.2988
7.81250.28933.5404
3.906250.30130.7231
1.9531250.32425.4252
0.97656250.4115.51772

Table 4.14: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of AQSP of A. chinensis

Abs.of

Blank

Conc.

(mg/ml)

Abs.of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 6.14: Chart for IC50 value of AQSP of A. chinensis
0.4355000.08680.143824.54
2500.11473.57208
1250.09677.73506
62.50.15963.54106
31.250.17260.4597
15.6250.23945.04513
7.81250.30031.0344
3.906250.32225.977
1.9531250.35817.62901
0.97656250.38212.1839

Sesbania sesban

Five extractives and one isolated compound from S. sesban were subjected to assay for free radical scavenging activity. In this study, the CFSP and AQSP showed the highest free radical scavenging activity with IC50 value 17.81 µg/ml and 21.72 µg/ml. At the same time petroleum ether soluble materials exhibit moderate antioxidant potential having IC50 value 25.73 µg/ml. The crude methanolic extract and CTSP exhibit low antioxidant activity having IC50 values 48.5 and 69.49 µg/ml, respectively. IC50 value for TBHT was 14.18 µg/ml (Table 4.15, Figure 4.15).

Table 4.15: IC50 values and equation of regression lines of standard and test samples of S. sesban

Test sampleIC50 (µg/ml)#Equation of regression lineR2
TBHT14.18 ± 1.01y = 14.776Ln(x) + 10.8120.9351
MSLE48.5 ± 0.78y = 8.6915Ln(x) + 16.2570.9877
PESP25.73 ± 2.3y = 6.2183Ln(x) + 29.8010.9874
CTSP69.49 ± 1.71y = 6.0195Ln(x) + 24.4660.9834
CFSP17.81 ± 0.86y = 8.8342Ln(x) + 24.5550.9829
AQSP21.72 ± 1.45y = 6.0164Ln(x) + 31.4780.8474

#The values of IC50 are expressed as mean ± SD (n=3)

Figure 4.15: Chart for IC50 values of the standard and extractives of S. sesban

Table 4.16: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of MSLE (crude) of S. sesban

Abs.of

Blank

Conc.

(mg/ml)

Abs.of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.16 Chart for IC50 value of MSLE (crude) of

S. sesban

0.4845000.12673.96694248.5
2500.14969.214876
1250.17364.256198
62.50.20657.438017
31.250.25148.140496
15.6250.27443.38843
7.81250.28840.495868
3.906250.31035.950413
1.9531250.33530.785124
0.97656250.35626.446281

Table 4.17: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value PESP of S. sesban

Abs.of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.17: Chart for IC50 value PESP of S. sesban
0.4845000.14669.83471125.73
2500.18062.809917
1250.19360.123967
62.50.21056.61157
31.250.23252.066116
15.6250.27243.801653
7.81250.28341.528926
3.906250.30137.809917
1.9531250.31235.53719
0.97656250.33730.371901

Table 4.18: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value CTSP of S. sesban

Abs.of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.18: Chart for IC50 value of CTSP of S. sesban
0.4845000.19060.74380269.49
2500.20757.231405
1250.21455.785124
62.50.24649.173554
31.250.27742.768595
15.6250.28141.942149
7.81250.29139.876033
3.906250.32732.438017
1.9531250.35127.479339
0.97656250.37023.553719

Table 4.19: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value CFSP of S. sesban

Abs of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.19: Chart for IC50 value of CFSP of S. sesban
0.4845000.08382.8512417.81
2500.12673.966942
1250.15867.355372
62.50.18960.950413
31.250.23651.239669
15.6250.26445.454545
7.81250.28441.322314
3.906250.31035.950413
1.9531250.32832.231405
0.97656250.35027.68595

Table 4.20: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value AQSP of S. sesban

Abs.of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.20: Chart for IC50 value of AQSP of S. sesban
0.4845000.09380.78512421.72
2500.18661.570248
1250.20058.677686
62.50.24649.173554
31.250.25347.727273
15.6250.26844.628099
7.81250.26944.421488
3.906250.27742.768595
1.9531250.29437.256198
0.97656250.29634.011023

Moringa oleifera

Different extractives of bark of M. oleifera were subjected to evaluation for free radical scavenging activity by previously described method. Here, the dichloromethane (DMSP) and carbon tetrachloride soluble materials (CTSP) showed the highest free radical scavenging activity with IC50 value 27.49 µg/ml and 35.78 µg/ml. At the same time, methanol soluble extract (crude) and hexane soluble partitionates (HXSP) did not exhibit promising antioxidant activity (Table 4.21, Figure 4.21).

Table 4.21: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 values of standard and test samples of M. oleifera

Test samplesIC50 (µg/ml)#Equation of regression lineR2
TBHT14.18 ± 1.01y = 14.776Ln(x) + 10.8120.9351
MSBE44.3 ± 0.98y = 11.156Ln(x) + 7.70070.9071
HXSP48.47 ± 2.41y = 8.5434Ln(x) + 16.8390.9684
CTSP35.78 ± 1.83y = 8.6283Ln(x) + 19.1280.9723
DMSP27.49 ± 0.87y = 6.9879Ln(x) + 26.840.9556
AQSP77.77 ± 2.62y = 7.4341Ln(x) + 17.6280.9596

#The values of IC50 are expressed as mean±SD (n=3)

Figure 4.21: Chart for IC50 value of the standard and extractives of M. oleifera

Table 4.22: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of methanol extract of M. oleifera

Abs.of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.22:Chart for IC50 value of MSBE of M. oleifera
0.3955000.10178.96144.3
2500.11875.5844
1250.14370.3896
62.50.24349.6103
31.250.30636.6233
15.6250.33630.3896
7.81250.37322.8571
3.906250.3919.2207
1.9531250.38221.0389
0.97656250.39817.6623

Table 4.23: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of HXSP of M. oleifera

Abs.of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.23: Chart for IC50 value of HXSP of M. oleifera
0.3955000.16466.115748.47
2500.18362.1901
1250.18761.3636
62.50.21755.1653
31.250.25547.3141
15.6250.26645.0413
7.81250.33630.5785
3.906250.34828.0992
1.9531250.39418.5950
0.97656250.39518.3884

Table 4.24: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of CTSP of M. oleifera

Abs of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.24: Chart for IC50 value of CTSP of M. oleifera
0.3955000.09974.28571435.78
2500.10870.456378
1250.11859.504132
62.50.14353.783138
31.250.19644.913562
15.6250.22538.459123
7.81250.26936.957215
3.906250.31035.950413
1.9531250.32123.419683
0.97656250.30520.638123

Table 4.25: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of DMSP of M. oleifera

Abs.of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.25: Chart for IC50 value of DMSP of M. oleifera
0.3855000.15268.59504127.49
2500.17064.876033
1250.20158.471074
62.50.21355.991736
31.250.23950.619835
15.6250.22952.68595
7.81250.26445.454545
3.906250.31135.743802
1.9531250.35127.479339
0.97656250.36424.793388

Table 4.26: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of AQSP of M. oleifera

Abs.of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extract

%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

Figure 4.26: Chart for IC50 value of AQSP of M. oleifera
0.3855000.18661.57024877.77
2500.21156.404959
1250.23152.272727
62.50.24250.0
31.250.24748.966942
15.6250.27543.181818
7.81250.32932.024793
3.906250.36524.586777
1.9531250.38819.834711
0.97656250.39917.561983

SS-02 (3, 7-Dihydroxyoleanolic acid, 104)

SS-02 (3, 7-dihydroxyoleanolic acid (104) isolated from leaves of S. sesban was subjected to evaluation for free radical scavenging activity by previously described method. It showed free radical scavenging activity with IC50 values of 58.20 µg/ml in the DPPH assay as compared to blank for the standard antioxidant agent TBHT.

Table 4.27: List of absorbance against concentrations and IC50 value of SS-02 (3,7-dihydroxy oleanolic acid, 104)

SS-02 (3, 7-Dihydroxyoleanolic acid, 103)
Sl

no.

Abs.of

Blank

Conc

(mg/ml)

Abs of

Extract

Inhibition%

Inhibition

IC50

(mg/ml)

10.4845000.1750.638429863.8429858.20
22500.2010.584710758.47107
31250.2210.543388454.33884
462.50.2320.520661252.06612
531.250.2360.512396751.23967
615.6250.2650.452479345.24793
77.81250.3180.342975234.29752
83.906250.3550.266528926.65289
91.9531250.3770.221074422.10744
100.97656250.3860.202479320.24793

Antioxidant in diabetes management

There is recent evidence that free radical induce oxidative damage to biomolecules. This damage causes aging, diabetes, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases and other pathological events in living organisms (Halliwell et al. 1992). Antioxidants which scavenge free radicals are known to posses an important role in preventing these free radical induced-diseases (Jayaprakasha et al., 2000).

There have the close relationship between oxidative damage, antioxidant protection, diabetes and complications of diabetes. Oxidative damage has been link to arthritis, shock and trauma, kidney disease and diabetes.

There have two types of antioxidants, synthetic (chemically synthesized) and natural (plant derived). Some synthetic antioxidant such as tert-butyl-1-hydroxitoluene (TBHT), butylated hydroxianisole (BHA) are known to have not only toxic and carcinogenic effects on humans (Ito et al. ,1986; Wichi, 1988), but also abnormal effects on enzyme systems (Inatani et al. 1983). Thus, the interest in natural antioxidant, especially of plant origin, has greatly increased in recent years (Jayaprakasha et al., 2000).

Not only endogenous antioxidants, exogenous antioxidants obtained from the diet also play an important role in the body’s antioxidant defense. These include vitamin C, vitamin E, carotenoids such as beta-carotene and lycopene, and other phytonutrients, or substances found in fruits, vegetables, and other plant foods that provide health benefits.

There is substantial evidence that people with diabetes tend to have increased generation of reactive oxygen species, decreased antioxidant protection, and therefore increased oxidative damage. High blood glucose level (hyperglycemia) has been show