ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Biological activities and phytochemical characterization of
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological Activities and LC-QTOF-MS-Based Phytochemical Characterization ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Toxicological Assessment ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The current study focuses on evaluating the biological activity and analysis of phytochemical content of extracts and extract-loaded nanoparticles from Methods: Antioxidant activities of extracts and nanoparticles were investigated by DPPH, FRAP and CUPRAC methods. Enzyme inhibition potentials of extracts and nanoparticles were evaluated by Ellman and indophenol methods. Phytochemical contents were analyzed by HPLC-DAD. Plant extracts were encapsulated by the ionic gelation method which was modified in our laboratory using the green chemistry approach. Results and Discussion: It was found that the 70% ethanol extracts of SGV and SLL exhibited the highest antioxidant activity in terms of DPPH, FRAP and CUPRAC compared to other extracts. The findings showed that both 70% ethanol extract-loaded nanoparticles obtained from SGV and SLL showed lower DPPH radical scavenging, iron (III) reducing and copper (II) reducing activities compared to crude extracts. It was determined that the 70% extracts of SGV and SLL exhibited a higher potential to inhibit the enzyme urease than other extracts. The anti-urease activity of the nanoparticle loaded with SLL 70% ethanol extract was found to be greater than that of the nanoparticle made with SGV 70% ethanol extract. Furthermore, an analysis of the acetylcholinesterase enzyme inhibition capacity of various extracts from both plants revealed that the 70% ethanol extracts of each plant species had a greater potential for enzyme inhibition than the other extracts. The anticholinesterase activity of the nanoparticle loaded with SLL 70% extract was found to be higher than that of the nanoparticle loaded with SGV 70% ethanol extract. In this study the phenolic metabolites were examined, luteolin (27.44 μg/mg extract) and Conclusion: The substantial biological activities of the nanoparticles developed as a result of this work showed that these formulations are suitable for use as antioxidant, anti-urease and anticholinesterase medicines in the future due to the benefits of using nanoparticles in the therapeutics such as the controlled release of the active agents and the diminished side effects.
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.