ArticleScientific reports2026
Bioactivity assessment and LC-MS/MS-based phenolic characterization of Gypsophila pilosa.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, the antioxidant, anticholinesterase, antiproliferative activities, and phenolic compound profile of ethanol extracts of Gypsophila pilosa were comprehensively evaluated. Plant samples were collected from Şanlıurfa province, Türkiye, and after shade-drying under laboratory conditions, they were extracted with ethanol using a Soxhlet apparatus at 50 °C. The antioxidant capacity results revealed that total antioxidant status was 3.528 ± 0.085 mmol/L, total oxidant status (TOS) was 10.248 ± 0.072 µmol/L, and oxidative stress index was 0.291 ± 0.009. In addition, DPPH radical scavenging activity and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) were determined as 92.317 ± 2.336 mg TE/g and 128.016 ± 2.480 mg TE/g, respectively, indicating a strong antioxidant potential. In anticholinesterase assays, the extract exhibited inhibitory activity against acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE), with IC₅₀ values of 160.163 ± 2.155 µg/mL and 223.903 ± 1.049 µg/mL, respectively. The antiproliferative activity was evaluated on A549 and MCF-7 cancer cell lines, as well as the HaCaT normal cell line. The extract demonstrated a dose-dependent reduction in cell viability in cancer cell lines, while comparatively lower cytotoxic effects were observed in normal cells at lower concentrations, suggesting a degree of selective activity. LC-MS/MS analysis revealed the presence of several bioactive phenolic compounds, including catechin hydrate, caffeic acid, gallic acid, and kaempferol, which are known for their antioxidant and cytotoxic properties. These compounds may contribute to the observed biological activities through overlapping and complementary mechanisms. In conclusion, G. pilosa exhibits notable antioxidant, enzyme inhibitory, and antiproliferative activities, which may be associated with its phenolic composition. However, further studies are required to clarify its selectivity and underlying mechanisms before potential pharmaceutical applications can be considered.
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.