Antidiabetic potential and multi-biological activities of Trachystemon orientalis extracts
- 52 Downloads
Due to the increase in exposure to chemical substances, the investigation of natural compounds with protective effects has become popular. So in this study the antimicrobial, antioxidant, antimutagenic activities and enzyme inhibitory effects of Trachystemon orientalis leaf and stem extracts were investigated. Antimicrobial effect was determined by disc diffusion method and the antimutagenic effect was investigated by Ames/Salmonella/microsomal test. Antioxidant properties of T. orientalis extracts were determined by investigating the phytochemical contents and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) removal activity. The antidiabetic activity of the extracts was investigated by α-amylase and α-glucosidase enzyme inhibition. It has been determined that all extracts exhibit antimicrobial activity at different ratios and the highest antimicrobial activity was obtained with a 21 ± 0.4 mm inhibition zone against Escherichia coli. The highest DPPH removal activity of leaf and stem extracts was determined to be 65.1 ± 2.4% and 59.4 ± 2.7%, respectively. In enzyme inhibitory analysis, it was determined that the α-glucosidase inhibitory effect of extracts was higher than the α-amylase inhibition effect. In antimutagenity test, the highest antimutagenic effects of leaf and stem extract were determined as 78.2 ± 1.1% and 67.2 ± 1.5%, respectively. As a result, T. orientalis leaf and stem extracts were determined as a potential natural antimicrobial, antimutagenic and antioxidant source with a moderately high antidiabetic activity.
KeywordsAntimutagenic activity Antioxidant activity Antidiabetic activity T. orientalis
Gallic acide equivalent
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The present study does not constitute endorsement of the product by the authors or any conflict of interest.
Research involving human and animal participants
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.
- 3.O.E. Akcin, N. Kandemir, Y. Akcin, Turk. J. Bot. 28, 435–442 (2004)Google Scholar
- 4.A. Onaran, M. Yılar, J. Food Agric. Environ. 10, 287–291 (2012)Google Scholar
- 5.M. Yılar, A. Onaran, Y. Yanar, S. Belguzer, I. Kadıoglu, Iğdır Univ. J. Inst. Sci. Technol. 4, 19–27 (2014)Google Scholar
- 9.M. Bhat, S.S. Zinjarde, S.Y. Bhargava, A.R. Kumar, B.N. Joshi, J. Evid Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2011, 1–6 (2011)Google Scholar
- 10.E. Yalçın, E. Azap, K. Çavuşoğlu, Duzce Univ. J. Sci. Technol. 5, 622–631 (2017)Google Scholar
- 11.V.L. Singleton, J.A. Rossi, Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 16, 144–158 (1965)Google Scholar
- 13.W. Vermerris, R. Nicholson, in Isolation and Identification of Phenolic Compounds. Phenolic Compound Biochemistry, (Springer, Dordrecht, 2008), pp 151–196.Google Scholar
- 20.S. Mamta, S. Jyoti, N. Rajeev, S. Dharmendra, G. Abhishek, J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 1, 168–182 (2013)Google Scholar
- 27.M. Masoumi, S. Mehrabian, M.K. Rahimi, F. Bagheri, H. Masoumi, Res. J. Pharm. Biol. Chem. Sci. 5, 1311–1319 (2014)Google Scholar
- 28.R. Saad, M. Aqil, E. Yusuf, F. Asmani, IJPAR 3, 241–248 (2014)Google Scholar