Green synthesis of nickel nanoparticles using Fumaria officinalis as a novel chemotherapeutic drug for the treatment of ovarian cancer

Figures & data

Figure 1. EDX analysis of NiNPs@F. officinalis.

Figure 2. FE-SEM images of NiNPs@F. officinalis.

Figure 3. XRD Pattern of NiNPs@F. officinalis.

Figure 4. FT-IR Spectra of NiNPs@F. officinalis and F. officinalis extract.

Figure 5. UV–Vis. spectrum of NiNPs@F. officinalis.

Table 1. The anti-human ovarian cancer properties of NiSO₄, F. officinalis, and NiNPs@F. officinalis against human breast carcinoma cell lines.

Concentration (µg/mL)	Cell viability (%)
	HUVEC	PA-1	Caov-3	SW-626	SK-OV-3
NiSO4 (0)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
NiSO4 (1)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
NiSO4 (2)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
NiSO4 (3)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
NiSO4 (7)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
NiSO4 (15)	98.2 ± 1.3^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
NiSO4 (31)	94 ± 0.7^a	99.2 ± 0.44^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
NiSO4 (62)	88.6 ± 0.89^a	96 ± 0.7^a	98 ± 1^a	99.6 ± 1.14^a	98 ± 0.7^a
NiSO4 (125)	83 ± 1^a	91 ± 0.7^a	94.6 ± 0.89^a	92.2 ± 1.3^a	94.2 ± 0.83^a
NiSO4 (250)	77.6 ± 1.14^ab	86 ± 1^a	89.6 ± 0.89^a	84 ± 1.22^a	87 ± 1^a
NiSO4 (500)	70 ± 1.22^ab	79.2 ± 0.44^ab	83.2 ± 0.83^a	78.2 ± 0.83^ab	79.6 ± 1.14^ab
NiSO4 (1000)	62.6 ± 1.14^ab	73 ± 0.7^ab	75 ± 1.22^ab	69 ± 1^ab	68.2 ± 0.44^ab
F. officinalis (0)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
F. officinalis (1)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
F. officinalis (2)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
F. officinalis (3)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
F. officinalis (7)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
F. officinalis (15)	100 ± 0^a	98.4 ± 0.54^a	98.6 ± 0.89^a	99 ± 0.7^a	98.4 ± 0.54^a
F. officinalis (31)	100 ± 0^a	96.2 ± 0.83^a	94.6 ± 1.14^a	95 ± 1^a	96.4 ± 0.89^a
F. officinalis (62)	99.4 ± 0.54^a	91.6 ± 1.14^a	88.2 ± 1.3^a	89.2 ± 0.83^a	88 ± 1^a
F. officinalis (125)	97.4 ± 0.89^a	83 ± 0.7^a	76.4 ± 0.89^ab	79 ± 0.7^ab	80.6 ± 1.14^ab
F. officinalis (250)	94.2 ± 1.3^a	72.6 ± 0.89^ab	62 ± 0.7^ab	65.4 ± 0.54^ab	67.2 ± 0.83^ab
F. officinalis (500)	91 ± 1.22^a	57 ± 1.22^b	49.6 ± 1.14^b	50 ± 1^b	51 ± 1.22^b
F. officinalis (1000)	87.6 ± 0.89^a	34.4 ± 0.54^bc	23.4 ± 0.89^bc	30.6 ± 0.89^bc	26.2 ± 0.83^bc
NiNPs@F. officinalis (0)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (1)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (2)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (3)	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	100 ± 0^a	99 ± 1^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (7)	100 ± 0^a	99.2 ± 0.44^a	99.4 ± 0.54^a	99.4 ± 0.54^a	96.4 ± 0.89^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (15)	100 ± 0^a	96 ± 0.7^a	94.2 ± 1.3^a	96.2 ± 0.83^a	90.2 ± 0.83^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (31)	99.4 ± 0.54^a	90.6 ± 1.14^a	87.6 ± 0.89^a	89 ± 1^a	83 ± 1.22^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (62)	98.6 ± 0.89^a	84.6 ± 1.14^a	76.2 ± 0.83^ab	78.2 ± 0.44^ab	76 ± 0.7^ab
NiNPs@F. officinalis (125)	94 ± 1^a	74.2 ± 0.83^ab	62 ± 1.22^ab	64.2 ± 0.83^ab	66.2 ± 1.3^ab
NiNPs@F. officinalis (250)	89.4 ± 0.89^a	60 ± 1.22^b	47 ± 0.7^b	49.4 ± 0.54^b	52 ± 1^b
NiNPs@F. officinalis (500)	83 ± 1.22^a	40 ± 1^bc	29.2 ± 1.3^bc	32 ± 1^bc	35.6 ± 0.89^bc
NiNPs@F. officinalis (1000)	75.2 ± 0.44^ab	13.4 ± 0.89^c	4.6 ± 0.89^c	8.6 ± 0.89^c	9.6 ± 1.14^c

The several words present significant differences between experimented groups (p ≤ 0.01).

Table 2. The IC₅₀ of NiSO₄, F. officinalis, and NiNPs@F. officinalis in cytotoxicity and anti-ovarian cancer tests.

	NiSO4 (µg/mL)	F.officinalis (µg/mL)	NiNPs@F. officinalis (µg/mL)
IC50 against HUVEC	–	–	–
IC50 against PA-1	–	652 ± 0^a	375 ± 0^c
IC50 against Caov-3	–	497 ± 0^b	225 ± 0^d
IC50 against SW-626	–	500 ± 0^b	246 ± 0^d
IC50 against SK-OV-3	–	520 ± 0^b	279 ± 0^d

The several words present significant differences between experimented groups (p ≤ 0.01).

Table 3. The antioxidant activities of NiSO₄, F. officinalis, NiNPs@F. officinalis, and BHT against DPPH.

Concentration (µg/mL)	DPPH inhibition (%)	Concentration (µg/mL)	DPPH inhibition (%)
BHT (0)	0 ± 0^a	Fumaria officinalis (0)	0 ± 0^a
BHT (1)	0 ± 0^a	Fumaria officinalis (1)	0 ± 0^a
BHT (2)	2 ± 0.7^a	Fumaria officinalis (2)	1.2 ± 0.44^a
BHT (3)	6.4 ± 0.54^a	Fumaria officinalis (3)	3.4 ± 0.89^a
BHT (7)	11.2 ± 0.44^a	Fumaria officinalis (7)	8.6 ± 0.89^a
BHT (15)	18.6 ± 0.89^ab	Fumaria officinalis (15)	13 ± 1^a
BHT (31)	26.2 ± 1.3^ab	Fumaria officinalis (31)	21.4 ± 0.54^ab
BHT (62)	39 ± 1.22^b	Fumaria officinalis (62)	29.2 ± 0.44^ab
BHT (125)	54.6 ± 1.14^b	Fumaria officinalis (125)	37 ± 1.22^ab
BHT (250)	71.6 ± 1.14^bc	Fumaria officinalis (250)	49.6 ± 0.89^b
BHT (500)	92 ± 0.7^c	Fumaria officinalis (500)	63.2 ± 0.83^bc
BHT (1000)	100 ± 0^c	Fumaria officinalis (1000)	79 ± 1^c
Concentration (µg/mL)	DPPH inhibition (%)	Concentration (µg/mL)	DPPH inhibition (%)
NiNPs@F. officinalis (0)	0 ± 0^a	NiSO4 (0)	0 ± 0^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (1)	0 ± 0^a	NiSO4 (1)	0 ± 0^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (2)	2.4 ± 0.89^a	NiSO4 (2)	0 ± 0^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (3)	5.4 ± 0.54^a	NiSO4 (3)	2.4 ± 0.89^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (7)	10 ± 1.22^a	NiSO4 (7)	5.2 ± 1.3^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (15)	16.2 ± 0.44^a	NiSO4 (15)	9 ± 1.22^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (31)	23.6 ± 0.89^ab	NiSO4 (31)	14 ± 1^a
NiNPs@F. officinalis (62)	32 ± 0.7^ab	NiSO4 (62)	20.2 ± 0.44^ab
NiNPs@F. officinalis (125)	47.2 ± 1.3^b	NiSO4 (125)	26.6 ± 1.14^ab
NiNPs@F. officinalis (250)	64.4 ± 0.89^bc	NiSO4 (250)	33.4 ± 0.89^ab
NiNPs@F. officinalis (500)	82 ± 1.22^c	NiSO4 (500)	38.2 ± 0.44^b
NiNPs@F. officinalis (1000)	100 ± 0^c	NiSO4 (1000)	46.6 ± 0.89^b

The different letter present significant differences between experimented groups (p ≤ 0.01).

Table 4. The IC₅₀ of NiSO₄, F. officinalis leaf aqueous extract, NiNPs@F. officinalis, and BHT in the antioxidant test.

Concentration (µg/mL)	BHT	F.officinalis	NiNPs@F. officinalis	NiSO4
IC50 (µg/mL)	107 ± 0^b	253 ± 0^a	145 ± 0^b	–

The different letters present significant differences between experimented groups (p ≤ 0.01).