Abstract
Objectives: In this study, cytotoxic effect, anticholinesterase, hemolytic and antibacterial activities of crude extracts (petroleum ether, ethyl acetate and n-butanol) obtained from the plant Scabiosa stellata L. were evaluated.
Methods: The cytotoxicity of extracts was tested by Brine shrimp lethality method; the acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activity was performed using Ellman's colorimetric method and the hemolytic activity was assessed by spectrophotometric method towards human erythrocytes. Furthermore, the antibacterial activity was estimated by agar disk diffusion assay against ten bacterial strains.
Results: The phytochemical screening of the extracts revealed the presence of several types of secondary metabolites. A significant cytotoxic effect was observed for the n-butanolic extract with 57.2 ± 0.2 % of mortality at 80 μg/mL, the ethyl acetate extract had a moderate anticholinesterase activity at 200 μg/mL. The hemolytic assay exhibited that n-butanolic and ethyl acetate extracts induce hemolysis in dose-dependent manner with values of EC50 at 37.3 ± 0.5 and 106.6 ± 0.3 μg/mL, respectively. All the crude extracts showed antibacterial activity against most tested strains, with zones of inhibition ranging from 9 to 20 mm.
Conclusion: The results indicate that the extracts obtained from S. stellata can be an important source of therapeutic agents against pathological damage due to free radicals inducing neurodegenerative and infectious diseases, while n-butanolic extract could be used as a good source of alternative natural antiproliferative compounds.
Keywords: Cytotoxicity, anticholinesterase activity, hemolytic activity, antibacterial activity, phytochemical screening, neurodegenerative diseases.
Graphical Abstract
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2009.01.017] [PMID: 19429468]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/157015909787602823]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02669.x]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8741(99)00083-5] [PMID: 10624874]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-6-10] [PMID: 20226092]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2006.09.016] [PMID: 17059874]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13880200701498895]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2015.03.035] [PMID: 25841374]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.01.009]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.201100191] [PMID: 22492499]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2015.1027701] [PMID: 25835468]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10725-012-9765-4]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joad.2016.08.001]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jps.2600550302] [PMID: 5335471]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-971236]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0006-2952(61)90145-9] [PMID: 13726518]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtusci.2014.01.003]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1573407212666160426161112]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2017.12.018] [PMID: 29273413]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2018.03.005] [PMID: 29547709]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11696-017-0308-3]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2004.02.011] [PMID: 15137999]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2015.05.001] [PMID: 25958771]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090848] [PMID: 24603880]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1396139] [PMID: 25590364]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2006.06.014] [PMID: 16950584]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/12321966.1185777] [PMID: 26706979]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.10.069] [PMID: 26434348]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/phbi.40.4.253.8470]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.12.018] [PMID: 29287802]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01400-08] [PMID: 19258263]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/157340721202160504223537]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/157340721101150804150016]