ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Comparison of sterilisation methods for deer velvet antler extracts and their impact on anticancer activity.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural extracts tested for potential effects in human health are susceptible to contamination, particularly when samples are often obtained from outdoor environments. Deer velvet antler (DVA) extracts have broad anticancer effects. As sterile samples are required for effective experimentation in cell cultures, we evaluated the most common sterilisation methods to get rid of microbial contamination. We also investigated whether the sterilisation method affected the anti-cancer activity of the DVA extract on human tumour cells. Two antler sections (tip and base) were subjected to water-based extraction. This study compares lyophilised and non-lyophilised DVA extracts. Subsequently, DMEM and LB culture media containing DVA extract were assessed for contamination. The amount of protein was quantified by BCA and visualised by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. To analyse the anticancer effect, a cell viability assay was performed on colorectal cancer cell lines. Finally, tumour biomarkers were evaluated by flow cytometry in colorectal cancer cells. Filtration was the sterilisation method that removed the highest microbial load. It reduced cell viability at a concentration of 1 mg/mL of total protein by up to 37% ± 10% (DVA-T) and by up to 69% ± 8% (DVA-B). Furthermore, the protein expression levels of SW480 colorectal cancer cells exhibited a significant increase in response to lyophilised DVA extracts in comparison to non-lyophilised extracts. The data obtained from this study indicate that the selected sterilization approaches allow preservation of protein integrity and
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.