ArticleGenes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society2025
In vitro and in vivo antimutagenic activity of Echinops spinosus crude extract and its aqueous fraction in mouse bone marrow and spleen.
Article in Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEchinops spinosus (ES), known as spiny globe thistle, has been widely used in traditional medicine to treat various ailments, such as splenic and renal disorders. However, the genoprotective effect of ES has not been examined previously. This report assessed the in vitro and in vivo genoprotective effects of crude extract of Echinops spinosus (CEES) and its aqueous fraction (AFES) against ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) in mice. This study applied a battery of genotoxic endpoints, including chromosomal aberrations (CAs), the comet assay, and the micronucleus (MN) assay. Further, GC-MS and HPLC analyses were employed to identify the primary and secondary metabolites in the plant samples, respectively. Total polyphenol and flavonoid contents (TPC and TFC) were also colorimetrically measured. In vitro experiments were conducted using cultured primary mouse bone marrow and spleen. These cells were treated with two concentrations of CEES or AFES (250 and 500 µg/mL; for 24 h), followed by EMS treatment (300 µg/mL; for two hours) before the harvest. For the in vivo experiments, mice were orally administered CEES and AFES (250, 500 mg/kg; for 7 days), with or without intraperitoneal injection with EMS (300 mg/kg; for 24 h).
resultsGC-MS analysis demonstrated 25 primary metabolites in AFES, and the nitrogenous compound bis(trimethylsilyl) ethylamine was the main constituent. HPLC analysis reported 17 and 14 secondary compounds in CEES and AFES, respectively, in which chlorogenic acid was the main constituent in both samples. Colorimetric analysis showed that CEES exhibited higher TPC and TFC compared to AFES. Genotoxic results showed that EMS increased the levels of CAs and comet tail formation in vitro bone marrow and splenic cultures. Further, EMS caused chromosomal damage, as indicated by a significant increase in the frequency of CAs and MN in vivo mouse bone marrow cells. Supplementation with CEES and AFES alleviated chromosomal and DNA damage induced by EMS, and this reduction was more pronounced in vivo than in vitro experiments.
conclusionHigh-polar constituents primarily mediated the antimutagenic activity of CEES and AFES. Meanwhile, other phytoconstituents in CEES, such as moderately polar and nonpolar constituents, synergistically potentiated the genoprotective activity, resulting in greater efficacy of CEES than AFES.
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.