Display options
Cite
Specian AF, Serpeloni JM, Tuttis K, et al. LDH, proliferation curves and cell cycle analysis are the most suitable assays to identify and characterize new phytotherapeutic compounds. Cytotechnology. 2016;68(6):2729-2744doi: 10.1007/s10616-016-9998-6.
Specian, A. F., Serpeloni, J. M., Tuttis, K., Ribeiro, D. L., Cilião, H. L., Varanda, E. A., Sannomiya, M., Martinez-Lopez, W., Vilegas, W., & Cólus, I. M. (2016). LDH, proliferation curves and cell cycle analysis are the most suitable assays to identify and characterize new phytotherapeutic compounds. Cytotechnology, 68(6), 2729-2744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10616-016-9998-6
Specian, Ana Flávia L, et al. "LDH, proliferation curves and cell cycle analysis are the most suitable assays to identify and characterize new phytotherapeutic compounds." Cytotechnology vol. 68,6 (2016): 2729-2744. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10616-016-9998-6
Specian AF, Serpeloni JM, Tuttis K, Ribeiro DL, Cilião HL, Varanda EA, Sannomiya M, Martinez-Lopez W, Vilegas W, Cólus IM. LDH, proliferation curves and cell cycle analysis are the most suitable assays to identify and characterize new phytotherapeutic compounds. Cytotechnology. 2016 Dec;68(6):2729-2744. doi: 10.1007/s10616-016-9998-6. Epub 2016 Jun 25. PMID: 27344148; PMCID: PMC5101344.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Cytotechnology. 2016 Dec;68(6):2729-2744. doi: 10.1007/s10616-016-9998-6. Epub 2016 Jun 25.

LDH, proliferation curves and cell cycle analysis are the most suitable assays to identify and characterize new phytotherapeutic compounds.

Cytotechnology

Ana Flávia L Specian, Juliana M Serpeloni, Katiuska Tuttis, Diego L Ribeiro, Heloísa L Cilião, Eliana A Varanda, Miriam Sannomiya, Wilner Martinez-Lopez, Wagner Vilegas, Ilce M S Cólus

Affiliations

  1. Department of General Biology, State University of Londrina, PR 445 Km 380, s/n - Campus Universitário, Londrina, PR, CEP 86057-970, Brazil. [email protected].
  2. Department of General Biology, State University of Londrina, PR 445 Km 380, s/n - Campus Universitário, Londrina, PR, CEP 86057-970, Brazil.
  3. Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Araraquara, São Paulo State University "Júlio de Mesquita Filho", Araraquara, SP, Brazil.
  4. School of Arts, Science and Humanities, São Paulo University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
  5. Instituto de Investigaciones Biológicas Clemente Estable, Montevideo, Uruguay.
  6. Institute of Biosciences, UNESP- Paulista State University, Coastal Campus of São Vicente, São Vicente, SP, Brazil.

PMID: 27344148 PMCID: PMC5101344 DOI: 10.1007/s10616-016-9998-6

Abstract

Brazilian flora biodiversity has been widely investigated to identify effective and safe phytotherapeutic compounds. Among the investigated plant species, the Byrsonima genus exhibits promising biological activities. This study aimed at evaluating the cytotoxicity of B. correifolia, B. verbascifolia, B. fagifolia and B. intermedia extracts using different assays in two cell lines (primary gastric and HepG2 cells). The different extract concentrations effects on cell viability were assayed using the MTT, aquabluer, neutral red and LDH assays. Non-cytotoxic concentrations were selected to generate cell proliferation curves and to assess cell cycle kinetics by flow cytometry. Byrsonima extracts differentially affected cell viability depending on the metabolic cellular state and the biological parameter evaluated. B. fagifolia and B. intermedia extracts exhibited lower cytotoxic effects than B. correifolia and B. verbascifolia in all assays. The results obtained with LDH and flow cytometry assays were more reliable, suggesting that they can be useful in the screening for herbal medicine and to further characterize these extracts as phytotherapeutic compounds.

Keywords: Antioxidant; Byrsonima sp.; Cytostatic; Cytotoxicity; Flow cytometry; Herbal medicine

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1990 Jul 4;82(13):1107-12 - PubMed
  2. Nature. 2004 Nov 18;432(7015):316-23 - PubMed
  3. Toxicol In Vitro. 2011 Dec;25(8):2147-51 - PubMed
  4. Int J Pharm. 2005 Jan 20;288(2):369-76 - PubMed
  5. Nat Protoc. 2008;3(7):1125-31 - PubMed
  6. Cancer Lett. 2003 Jun 10;195(2):193-9 - PubMed
  7. J Ethnopharmacol. 2012 Mar 27;140(2):203-12 - PubMed
  8. J Ethnopharmacol. 2008 Nov 20;120(2):149-60 - PubMed
  9. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Jun 05;14:182 - PubMed
  10. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2005;19(16):2244-50 - PubMed
  11. Cancer Res. 1989 Aug 15;49(16):4435-40 - PubMed
  12. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2007;21(8):1393-1400 - PubMed
  13. BMC Res Notes. 2015 Feb 20;8:47 - PubMed
  14. Toxicol In Vitro. 2009 Aug;23(5):797-807 - PubMed
  15. Nat Prod Res. 2015;29(15):1461-5 - PubMed
  16. J Nat Prod. 2012 Mar 23;75(3):311-35 - PubMed
  17. Cancer Res. 1988 Sep 1;48(17):4827-33 - PubMed
  18. Methods Mol Biol. 2011;731:219-36 - PubMed
  19. Mutagenesis. 2003 Nov;18(6):487-90 - PubMed
  20. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2015 Feb;67(2):179-87 - PubMed
  21. Mutagenesis. 2016 Mar;31(2):147-60 - PubMed
  22. Chirality. 2010 Aug;22(8):726-33 - PubMed
  23. Toxicon. 2001 May;39(5):603-13 - PubMed
  24. J Ethnopharmacol. 2011 Nov 18;138(2):610-5 - PubMed
  25. J Immunol Methods. 1983 Dec 16;65(1-2):55-63 - PubMed
  26. Food Chem Toxicol. 2011 Nov;49(11):2773-9 - PubMed
  27. J Ethnopharmacol. 2005 Feb 10;97(1):1-6 - PubMed
  28. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Jun 25;14:199 - PubMed
  29. Mol Pharmacol. 2006 Apr;69(4):1103-14 - PubMed
  30. J Immunol Methods. 1983 Nov 25;64(3):313-20 - PubMed
  31. Sensors (Basel). 2012;12(9):12347-60 - PubMed
  32. J Ethnopharmacol. 2015 Dec 24;176:345-55 - PubMed
  33. Toxicol In Vitro. 2008 Feb;22(1):232-9 - PubMed
  34. Toxicol Lett. 2000 Aug 16;116(3):189-98 - PubMed
  35. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007 Jun 13;112(2):319-26 - PubMed
  36. J Ethnopharmacol. 2009 Apr 21;122(3):430-3 - PubMed
  37. Mutat Res. 2007 Mar 30;628(1):31-55 - PubMed
  38. J Ethnopharmacol. 2012 Jun 14;141(3):975-81 - PubMed

Publication Types