ArticleAdvanced pharmaceutical bulletin2014
DNA protective effect of mangosteen xanthones: an in vitro study on possible mechanisms.
Article in Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inhibitory Effects against Alpha-Amylase of an Enriched Polyphenol Extract from Pericarp of Mangosteen (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate antioxidant ability of mangosteen shell and explore the non-enzymatic repair reaction and possible mechanism of xanthones in mangosteen shell.
methodsMangosteen shell was extracted by methanol to obtain the extract of mangosteen shell. The extract was then determined by various antioxidant assays in vitro, including protection against DNA damage, •OH scavenging,DPPH• (1,1-diphenyl-2-picryl-hydrazl radical) scavenging, ABTS(+)• (2,2'-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzo- thiazoline-6-sulfonic acid diammonium) scavenging, Cu(2+)-chelating, Fe(2+)-chelatingand Fe(3+) reducing assays.
resultsMangosteen shell extract increased dose-dependently its percentages in all assays. Its IC50 values were calculated as 727.85±2.21,176.94±19.25, 453.91±6.47, 84.60±2.47, 6.81±0.28, 1.55±0.10, 3.93±0.17, and 9.52±0.53μg/mL, respectively for DNA damage assay, •OH scavenging assay, Fe(2+)-Chelating assay, Cu(2+)-Chelating assay, DPPH• scavenging assay, ABTS(+)•scavenging assay, Fe(3+) reducing assay and Cu(2+) reducing assay.
conclusionOn the mechanistic analysis, it can be concluded that mangosteen shell can effectively protect against hydroxyl-induced DNA oxidative damage. The protective effect can be attributed to the xanthones. One approach for xanthones to protect against hydroxyl-induced DNA oxidative damage may be ROS scavenging. ROS scavenging may be mediated via metal-chelating, and direct radical-scavenging which is through donating hydrogen atom (H·) and electron (e). However, both donating hydrogen atom (H·) and electron (e) can result in the oxidation of xanthone to stable quinone form.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.