Reactive oxygen species (ROS, partial reduction or derivatives of free radicals) are highly reactive, dangerous and can cause oxidative cell death. In addition to their role as toxic by-products of aerobic metabolism, ROS play a role in the control and regulation of biological processes such as growth, the cell cycle, programmed cell death, hormone signaling, biotic and abiotic stress reactions and development. ROS always arise in plants as a by-product of several metabolic processes that are located in different cell compartments, or as a result of the inevitable escape of electrons to oxygen from the electron transport activities of chloroplasts, mitochondria and plasma membranes. These reactive species are formed in chloroplasts, mitochondria, plasma membranes, peroxisomes, apoplasts, the endoplasmic reticulum and cell walls. The action of many non-enzymatic and enzymatic antioxidants present in tissues is required for efficient scavenging of ROS generated during various environmental stressors. The current review provides an in-depth look at the fate of ROS in plants, a beneficial role in managing stress and other irregularities. The production sites are also explained with their negative effects. In addition, the biochemical properties and sources of ROS generation, capture systems, the influence of ROS on cell biochemistry and the crosstalk of ROS with other signaling molecules/pathways are discussed.

No abstract

The current study was conducted to examine the in vitro anticancer potential of Cordia dichotoma (bark, leaves, pulp and seed). The plant material was collected from UT of J&K and methodical bioassays were carried out on ten human cancer cell lines (Michigan Cancer Foundation-7 (MCF-7), M.D. Anderson-Metastatic Breast (MDA-MB-231), Neuroblastoma-2a (N2A), SH-SY5Y, U-251, HCT-116, SW-620, A-549, MIA PaCa-2, Panc-1) from five different origins (breast, CNS, colon, lung, pancreas) respectively. Methanolic extracts were produced and fractions were then obtained from the extracts and evaluated for cytotoxicity. Mechanistic assays, HPLC, and GCMS profiling were performed on the highest active fraction. The Sulforhodamine B (SRB) assay determined the in vitro cytotoxicity. The findings revealed that the bark portion had in vitro cytotoxicity against the A-549 human lung cancer cell line. To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that the plant’s bark has anticancer properties and induced chromatin condensation, confirmed cell death via ROS generation, and significantly decreased colony formation in A-549 cell line from lung origin in a dose-dependent manner. Furthermore, HPLC and GCMS investigations indicated the presence of a number of bioactive molecules such as gallic acid (144,969.86) uV*sec, caffeic acid (104.26) uV*sec, ferulic acid (472.87) uV*sec, vanillic acid (13,775.39) uV*sec, palmitic acid (18.34%), cis vaccenic acid (28.81%), etc. and one of the compounds was reported for the first time from the bark. As a result of its promising efficacy, it may become an essential cancer chemopreventive or chemotherapeutic medication for patients with lung carcinoma.

Background: The medicinal properties of Syzygium sp., especially the antidiabetic property, date back to the ancient times. However, in the recent past, extracts from different parts of the Syzygium sp. have demonstrated promising anticancer activities in diverse cancer types, and now, attempts are being made to identify the active phytochemicals. Aims and Objectives: In this study, we intended to test the anticancer properties of phytochemicals extracted from the fruit of Syzygium cumini plant in ovarian cancer cells. Materials and Methods: A total of nine phytochemicals extracted from the S. cumini fruits using chloroform were tested for their anticancer activity in the ovarian cancer cell line PA-1. 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide tetrazolium assay was performed to calculate the 50% inhibition (IC50) concentration and cell cytotoxicity values. Cell scratch assay was performed to assess the proliferation inhibition activity of the phytochemicals. Cisplatin was used as positive control. Results: Out of the nine phytochemicals tested, quercetin (QC), gallic acid (GA), and oleanolic acid (OA) were found active. QC and GA were most effective with more than 90% cell cytotoxicity at 2.5 µ g/ml and above concentrations and OA moderately effective up to 5 µg/ml serial concentrations. Cell proliferation was significantly inhibited by QC and GA and moderately but significantly by OA. Conclusion: Our data demonstrate the anticancer activity of QC, GA, and OA phytochemicals, which is consistent with the previous reports. However, this is the first report showing the anticancer activity of these phytochemicals derived from S. cumini in the ovarian cancer cells. These data suggest that there is a potential to develop these phytochemicals as anticancer therapeutic agents either as monotherapeutic agents or in combination with commonly used chemotherapeutic agents, which needs to be explored.

No abstract