Study of In vitro antioxidant and DNA damage protection activity of a novel luteolin derivative isolated from Terminalia chebula

Figures & data

Table 1. The free-radical scavenging activity of different fractions of T. chebula fruit and ascorbic acid (positive control).

Sl No	C iCC is concentration in µg/ml and AA is % inhibition Sample	C1	AA	C2	AA	C3	AA	C4	AA	C5	AA	IC 50 (µg/ml)
1	Ascorbic acid	5	26.53 ± 0.94	10	55.48 ± 1.21	15	70.43 ± 0.49	20	85.16 ± 0.40	25	95.61 ± 0.64	9.87 ± 0.13
2	Hexane–Ether 1:4	5	10.76 ± 0.20	10	35.30 ± 1.20	15	54.88 ± 1.82	20	66.94 ± 1.65	25	83.74 ± 0.96	14.90 ± 0.02
3	Chloroform–Acetone 1:4	5	18.39 ± 0.17	10	32.26 ± 0.64	15	35.96 ± 1.58	20	56.8 ± 0.6	25	74.46 ± 0.51	17.35 ± 0.20
4	Ethyl acetate–Ethanol 6:1	5	6.14 ± 0.08	10	12.81 ± 0.25	15	21.67 ± 0.69	20	26.03 ± 0.18	25	33.93 ± 0.06	36.70 ± 0.12
5	Ether–Acetone 1:1	5	26.36 ± 0.20	10	41.02 ± 0.22	15	61.46 ± 0.29	20	68.32 ± 0.73	25	88.4 ± 0.5	12.64 ± 0.06
6	Methanol–Water 1:1	5	31.3 ± 1.65	10	48.36 ± 1.78	15	63.70 ± 1.49	20	69 ± 0.40	25	88.33 ± 0.64	11.23 ± 0.18

Figure 1. (a) Inhibitory effect of T. chebula fractions on plasmid DNA nicking. Lane 1 – DNA (pEGFP-C1 plasmid alone); Lane 2 – DNA and Fenton reagent; Lane 3 – DNA, Fenton reagent and Chloroform–Acetone 1:4; Lane 4 – DNA, Fenton reagent and Ethyl acetate–Ethanol 6:1; Lane 5 – DNA, Fenton reagent and Hexane–Ether 1:4; Lane 6 – DNA, Fenton reagent and Ether–Acetone 1:1; Lane 7-DNA, Fenton reagent and Methanol–Water 1:1. (b) Band intensity of Circular, Linear and Relaxed forms. Lane 1 – DNA (pEGFP-C1 plasmid alone); Lane 2 – DNA and Fenton reagent; Lane 3 – DNA, Fenton reagent and Chloroform–Acetone 1:4; Lane 4 – DNA, Fenton reagent and Ethyl acetate–Ethanol 6:1; Lane 5 – DNA, Fenton reagent and Hexane–Ether 1:4; Lane 6 – DNA, Fenton reagent and Ether–Acetone 1:1; Lane 7-DNA, Fenton reagent and Methanol–Water 1:1.

Table 2. % inhibition activity of different fractions at 20 µg/ml concentration.

Sl No	Extract	DPPH radical scavenging activity (µg/ml)	DNA protective (µg/ml)
1	Hexane–Ether 1:4	66.94 ± 1.65	6.667 ± 1.47
2	Chloroform–Acetone 1:4	56.8 ± 0.6	0.75 ± 0.01
3	Ethyl acetate–Ethanol 6:1	26.03 ± 0.18	3 ± 0.06
4	Ether–Acetone 1:1	68.32 ± 0.73	8.15 ± 0.23
5	Methanol–Water 1:1	69 ± 0.40	92.78 ± 3.37

Figure 2. UV–Vis spectrum of the compound.

Figure 3. FT-IR spectrum of the compound.

Figure 4. ¹H NMR spectrum of the compound.

Figure 5. Chemical structure of the compound.

Table 3. Description of mass spectrum.

Sl.No.	Peak Value	Structure	Existing peaks
1.	466		Basic structure
		Loss of from 1
2.	385		(466-81)
3.	371	Loss of from 2	(385-14)
4.	356	Loss of from 3	(371-15)
5.	301	Loss of from 4	(356-55)
6.	255	Loss of from 5	(301-46)
7.	286	Loss of side group from parent	(466-180)
8.	181		(466-285)
9.	175		(286-109)

Figure 6. Chemical structure of the compound isolated from T. chebula. 2-(2-(5-(cyclohex-2-enyl)-4-hydroxy-3-methylpentyl)-4,5-dihydroxyphenyl)-5,7-dihydroxy-4H-chromen-4-one.