Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38961104›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Assessing the antioxidant properties of Naringin and Rutin and investigating their oxidative DNA damage effects in breast cancer.

Badhe Pravin, Vivek Nanaware, Badhe Ashwini, Gezahign Fentahun Wondmie, Yousef A Bin Jardan, Mohammed Bourhia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Comparison of plasma and cecal quercetin inBioscience of microbiota, food and health · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Chemical Characterization and Assessment of the Neuroprotective Potential ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Badhe PravinSwalife Biotech Ltd Unit 3D North Point House, North Point Business Park, Cork, Ireland. drpravinbadhe@swalifebiotech.com.
Vivek NanawareSwalife Biotech Ltd Unit 3D North Point House, North Point Business Park, Cork, Ireland.
Badhe AshwiniSwalife Biotech Ltd Unit 3D North Point House, North Point Business Park, Cork, Ireland.
Gezahign Fentahun WondmieDepartment of Biology, Bahir Dar University, P.O.Box 79, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. resercherfent@gmail.com.
Yousef A Bin JardanDepartment of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, P.O. Box 11451, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed BourhiaDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ibn Zohr University, 70000, Laayoune, Morocco.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work examines the capacity of Naringin and Rutin to influence the DNA damage response (DDR) pathway by investigating their interactions with key DDR proteins, including PARP-1, ATM, ATR, CHK1, and WEE1. Through a combination of in silico molecular docking and in vitro evaluations, we investigated the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of these compounds on MDA-MB-231 cells, comparing them to normal human fibroblast cells (2DD) and quiescent fibroblast cells (QFC). The research found that Naringin and Rutin had strong affinities for DDR pathway proteins, indicating their capacity to specifically regulate DDR pathways in cancer cells. Both compounds exhibited preferential cytotoxicity towards cancer cells while preserving the vitality of normal 2DD fibroblast cells, as demonstrated by cytotoxicity experiments conducted at a dose of 10 µM. The comet experiments performed particularly on QFC cells provide valuable information on the genotoxic impact of Naringin and Rutin, highlighting the targeted initiation of DNA damage in cancer cells. The need to use precise cell models to appropriately evaluate toxicity and genotoxicity is emphasized by this discrepancy. In addition, ADMET and drug-likeness investigations have emphasized the pharmacological potential of these compounds; however, they have also pointed out the necessity for optimization to improve their therapeutic profiles. The antioxidant capabilities of Naringin and Rutin were assessed using DPPH and free radical scavenging assays at a concentration of 10 µM. The results confirmed that both compounds have a role in reducing oxidative stress, hence enhancing their anticancer effects. Overall, Naringin and Rutin show potential as medicines for modulating the DDR in cancer treatment. They exhibit selective toxicity towards cancer cells while sparing normal cells and possess strong antioxidant properties. This analysis enhances our understanding of the therapeutic uses of natural chemicals in cancer treatment, supporting the need for more research on their mechanisms of action and clinical effectiveness.

Indexed as

AntioxidantsBreast NeoplasmsDNA DamageFlavanonesMolecular Docking SimulationOxidative StressRutinCell Line, TumorCell SurvivalFemaleFibroblastsHumansAntioxidantsFlavanonesnaringinRutin2DD normal human fibroblast cellsAntioxidant activityCancer therapyDNA damage responseNaringinQuiescent fibroblast cellsRutinSelective cytotoxicity

Identifiers

PMID38961104
PMCPMC11222415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.