Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research Article
  • Open Access

Mutagenicity, cytotoxic and antioxidant activities of Ricinus communis different parts

  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 1,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 2 and
  • 5Email author
Chemistry Central Journal201812:3

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13065-018-0370-0

  • Received: 30 June 2016
  • Accepted: 7 January 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Ricinus communis (castor plant) is a potent medicinal plant, which is commonly used in the treatment of various ailments. The present study was conducted to appraise the cytotoxicity and mutagenicity of R. communis along with antioxidant and antimicrobial activities. Cytotoxicity was evaluated by hemolytic and brine shrimp assays, whereas Ames test (TA98 and TA100) was used for mutagenicity evaluation. Plant different parts were extracted in methanol by shaking, sonication and Soxhlet extraction methods. The R. communis methanolic extracts showed promising antioxidant activity evaluated as through total phenolic contents (TPC), total flavonoid content (TFC), DPPH free radical inhibition, reducing power and inhibition of linoleic acid oxidation. R. communis seeds, stem, leaves, fruit and root methanolic extracts showed mild to moderate cytotoxicity against red blood cells (RBCs) of human and bovine. Brine shrimp lethality also revealed the cytotoxic nature of extracts with LC50 in the range of 0.22–3.70 (µg/mL) (shaking), 1.59–60.92 (µg/mL) (sonication) and 0.72–33.60 (µg/mL) (Soxhlet), whereas LC90 values were in the range of 345.42–1695.81, 660.50–14,794.40 and 641.62–15,047.80 µg/mL for shaking, sonication and Soxhlet extraction methods, respectively. R. communis methanolic extracts revealed mild mutagenicity against TA98 (range 1975 ± 67 to 2628 ± 79 revertant colonies) and TA100 (range 2773 ± 92 to 3461 ± 147 revertant colonies) strains and these values were 3267 ± 278 and 4720 ± 346 revertant colonies in case of TA98 and TA100 positive controls, respectively. R. communis methanolic extracts prevented the H2O2 and UV to Plasmid pBR322 DNA oxidative damage. Results revealed that R. communis is a potential source of bioactive compounds and in future studies the bioactive compounds will be identified by advanced spectroscopic techniques.
Graphical Abstract image

Keywords

  • Medicinal plant
  • Extraction techniques
  • Antioxidant
  • DNA induced damage
  • Bioassays

Introduction

Medicinal plants are commonly used to treat various ailments in most of the developing communities. Besides, these are a potent source of food, fodder and fuel, etc. Ethnopharmacology involves the investigation of those plants used by traditional communities without understanding the pharmacological basis of medicinal plants [13]. Ricinus communis (family Euphorbiaceae) is a soft wood small tree, located in tropical and warm temperate regions of the world and bioactivity has been studied well of this plant [4, 5]. R. communis plant is used for the treatment of hepatitis, skin and breast cancer [6]. Naturally, plants synthesize phytochemicals as a part of their defense system under variable and harsh environmental conditions, which provide defense for plants against microorganism, pests and insects [713]. In developing country, plant derived herbal medicine are used commonly due to easy access and affordable, which are also regarded as safe versus synthetic drugs [1417]. Moreover, it is believed that plant based bioactive compounds have no side effects as compared to synthetic drugs and has wide range of therapeutic applications [18, 19]. However, plant extracts may contain toxic compounds [20], which can harm the living organisms. R. communis seeds, leaves, fruit, stem and bark are used in different traditional therapeutic practices by local practitioner (Hakeem) [21]. Therefore, the toxicity profiling (using bioassays) of such important plants is very helpful to appraise the safety [2233]. In this regard, the bioassays (hemolytic and brine shrimp) are the standard tests to evaluate the cytotoxicity, whereas TA98 and TA100 (based on salmonella mutant strains) are the reference tests for mutagenicity evaluation. The shrimp lethality assay was developed by Michael [34], later Vanhaecke [35], and Sleet and Brendel [36]. In this assay, Artemia nauplii are exposed to test compound and lethality is used to estimate cytotoxicity. This has been used as a useful tool for preliminary assessment of toxicity [37] i.e., fungal [38], extract [39, 40], metals [41], toxins  [42], pesticides [43], wastewater [4448], fumonisins [49] and dental materials [50]. Various authors also utilized this hemolytic test for cytotoxicity evaluation of different systems [5156]. The Ames test was proposed by Ames and coworker [5759] and have been used for mutagenicity evaluation of tobacco smoke [60], wastewater [61], treated wastewater [44, 45], herbal extracts [62] and toxic chemicals [63].

In view of importance of R. communis as a medicinal plant, nevertheless, researcher focused on cytotoxicity and mutagenicity using standard assays. Therefore, the principal objectives of the present study were to investigate the cytotoxicity and mutagenicity of different parts of R. communis parts along with bioactivity profiling. Hydrogen peroxide induced DNA damage protective efficiency was also evaluated of the extracts.

Materials and methods

Plant material

Ricinus communis plant was collected from the Botanical Garden, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan and seeds were purchased from local market, Faisalabad. The plants and seeds specimens were identified by Botanist, Dr. Mansoor Hameed, Department of Botany University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Sample preparation and extraction

The collected leaves, stem, fruit, roots and seeds of R. communis were washed with distilled water and shade dried. Dried plant parts were ground and passed through 80 mm mesh size. Different parts (20 g) were extracted in methanol (100 mL) using shaking, Soxhlet and sonication extraction methods. In case of shaking, extraction was performed for 6 h at room temperature (Shaker Gallenkamp, UK). For sonication, ultrasonic treatment (42 kHz, 135 W; Branson ultrasonic corporation, USA) was applied for 30 min. For Soxhlet, extraction was performed in Soxhlet extractor for 3 h. After extraction, methanol was evaporated and concentrated extracts were stored at − 4 °C.

Antioxidant activity

Total phenolic contents (TPC)

The TPC was assessed using Folin–Ciocalteu reagent following reported method elsewhere [64]. The TPC was calculated using a calibration curve (gallic acid, 10–100 ppm) and data was expressed as GAE of dry plant matter.

Total flavonoid contents (TFC)

Extract (0.1 g/mL) was placed in 10 mL volumetric flask and 5 mL distilled water was added. Then, 0.3 mL of 5% NaNO2 was added and after 5 min, 0.6 mL of 10% AlCl3 was added. After another 5 min, 2 mL of 1 M NaOH was added, mixed well and absorbance was measured at 510 nm. TFC amount was evaluated as catechin equivalents (g/100 g of DM) [65].

DPPH Radical scavenging assay

For DPPH activity measurement, extract (0.1 mg/mL) were mixed with 1 mL of 90 µM DPPH solution and then, final volume was made to 4 mL by adding 95% methanol. After 1 h of incubation at room temperature, the absorbance was recorded at 515 nm and response was calculated as in Eq. 1 [66].

$$Inhibition \, ( \%) = \left[ {\frac{{A_{0} }}{{A_{s} - A_{0} }}} \right]*100$$
(1)
where, Ao is the absorbance of the control and A s is the absorbance of the extract (sample).

Antioxidant activity in linoleic acid system

The percent inhibition of peroxidation of linoleic acid system [67]. Extract (5 mg) and linoleic acid (0.13 mL), 99.8% ethanol (10 mL) and 10 mL of 0.2 M sodium phosphate buffer (PH 7.0) were mixed thoroughly. Then, 25 mL with distilled water was added and incubated at 40 °C. The degree of oxidation was measured following thiocyanate method and percent inhibition of linoleic acid was calculated using Eq. 2.

$$Inhibition \, ( \%) = 100 - \left[ {\frac{{A_{{s,175\, {\text{h}}}} }}{{A_{{0, 175 \,{\text{h}}}} }}} \right]*100$$
(2)
where, As,175 h and A0,175 h are the absorbance values at 175 h of sample and control, respectively.

Reducing power determination

The reducing power was determined as described elsewhere [68]. Sodium phosphate buffer (5.0 mL, 0.2 M, pH 6.6), and potassium ferricyanide (5.0 mL, 1.0%) and R. communis extract was mixed and incubated at 50 °C for 20 min. Then, 5 mL of trichloroacetic acid (10%) was added and centrifuged at 980×g for 10 min at 5 °C. The supernatant (5.0 mL) was collected and diluted with distilled water (5.0 mL) along with ferric chloride (1.0 mL, 0.1%) addition and absorbance was recorded at 700 nm (Hitachi U-2001, Tokyo, Japan).

Toxicity evaluation

Hemolytic assay

Powell [69] method was adopted for hemolytic test. Blood sample (human and bovine, collected in heparinized tubes) was centrifuged for 5 min at 850×g for three to five times using chilled (4 °C) sterile isotonic phosphate buffer saline (PBS) having pH 7.4 and RBCs were separated. The separated RBCs were suspended in the PBS. Erythrocytes were counted using hemocytometer, which were 7.068 × 108 cells/mL. Then, 20 µL of plant extract was mixed with 180 µL blood cell suspension and samples were incubated with agitation for 30 min at 37 °C. The tubes were placed on ice for 5 min and contents were centrifuged for 5 min at 1310×g. A 100 µL supernatant was taken and 900 µL chilled PBS was added and eppendorfs were placed on ice for 5 min and absorbance was noted at 576 nm (BioTek, Winooski, VT, USA). The RBCs lysis (%) was calculated using relation shown in Eq. 3.

$$RBC_{lysis(\% )} = \left[ {\left( {{{A_{s} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{A_{s} } {A_{tx - 100} }}} \right. \kern-0pt} {A_{tx - 100} }}} \right) \times 100} \right]$$
(3)
where As is absorbance of the sample and Atx−100 is the absorbance of Triton X-100. Triton X-100 (0.1%) was used as a positive control and PBS was used as negative control.

Brine shrimp lethality assay

Brine shrimp (Artemia sp.) eggs were hatched in a culture flask (15 × 15 × 15 cm) filled with sterile, artificial seawater (prepared using sea salt 38 g/L, the pH was adjusted to 8.5 with 1 M NaOH) under constant aeration (aquarium air pump) and illumination for 48 h at 25 °C. After 48 h the shrimp-larvae were collected and exposed extract under investigation. The brine shrimp lethality assay was performed following reported method [39, 70]. Plant extracts were diluted to concentrations of 10, 100, 1000 and 3000 µg/mL for cytotoxicity testing. Twenty brine shrimp larvae were placed in vials containing extract using a plastic pipette with a 2 mm diameter tip. The larvae survival was counted under the stereomicroscope after 24 h and percent death rate at each dose and control were calculated. Salt-water and cyclophosphamide were used as negative and positive controls, respectively, and LC50 and LC90 values were estimated.

Ames test

Two S. typhimurium strains TA98 and TA100 were used [71]. The extract was considered mutagenic, if the number of revertant colonies on the plates containing test compounds was twice the number of revertant colonies in control plates (background) (extract/control revertant colonies ≥ 2.0) [72]. All the experiments were performed in triplicates and data, thus obtained was expressed as mean ± SD.

Results and discussion

Antioxidant activity

The antioxidant activity results are shown in Table 1. It was observed that extraction methods showed variable antioxidant activities in spite of same plant parts were used, however, all plant parts furnished promising antioxidant activities. The sonication extraction method showed higher TPC followed by Soxhlet and shaking and a similar trend was observed in case of TFC, DPPH percentage inhibition, reducing power and linoleic acid inhibition. The TPC, TFC, DPPH percentage inhibition, reducing power and linoleic acid inhibition values in case of sonication (for seeds) were 361 ± 2 (mg/100 g), 171 ± 2.8 (mg/100 g), 8.8 ± 0.6 (%), 87.28 ± 0.1 (%) and 0.854 ± 0.3 (OD), whereas Soxhlet showed these values 149 ± 1.5 (mg/100 g), 94 ± 0.4 (mg/100 g), 7.42 ± 0.5 (%), 48.19 ± 0.3 (%) and 0.523 ± 0.7 (OD) and in case of shaking 122 ± 3 (mg/100 g), 15 ± 1 (mg/100 g), 7.25 ± 0.3 (%), 43.56 ± 0.3 (%) and 0.481 ± 0.8 (OD) were recorded, respectively. The antioxidant in case of extraction methods and among plant parts found significantly different (P < 0.05). in case of shaking extraction method, leaves showed higher TPC and TFC values followed by seed, fruit, stem and roots, whereas in case of DPPH the trend was as; stem > leaves > seeds > roots > fruit. The reducing power of plant parts extracts was found in following order; leaves > seeds > fruits > stem and roots and linoleic acid percentage inhibition was found in following order; leaves > seeds > fruit > stem > roots. The antioxidant activity trend for different parts for sonication and Soxhlet also showed same trend, i.e., in case of sonication, the TFC values were recorded to be 361 ± 2, 11 ± 0.3, 58 ± 1, 64 ± 2 and 12 ± 0.5 (mg/100 g), TFC values were 171 ± 2.8, 4 ± 0.6, 32 ± 1.2, 46 ± 1.2 and 2.8 ± 0.6 (mg/100 g) and 8.8 ± 0.6, 6.2 ± 0.9, 10.45 ± 0.7, 5.67 ± 0.1 and 13.29 ± 0.7 (%) of DPPH percentage inhibition for seeds, stem, leaves, fruit and roots. The reducing power of seeds, stem, leaves, fruits and roots were 87.28 ± 0.1, 8.14 ± 0.7, 20.64 ± 0.3, 23.54 ± 0.6 and 11.39 ± 0.2 (%) and linoleic acid percentage inhibition values were recorded to be 0.854 ± 0.3, 0.184 ± 0.2, 0.356 ± 0.8, 0.379 ± 0.3 and 0.234 ± 0.9 (OD) for seeds, stem, leaves, fruits and root extracts, respectively. Earlier, it is also reported that the aerial part of R. communis has potent antioxidant activity [73] and in present investigation, leaves and seeds showed considerable higher (P < 0.05) higher antioxidant activity versus other parts. Antioxidant activity of n-hexane, dichloromethane, acetone, and methanol extracts of R. communis was also quantified using ABTS+ method. Among all extracting solvents, methanol extract showed the highest percentage free radical scavenging activity (95%) followed by acetone (91%), dichloromethane (62%), and n-hexane (50%). The antioxidant activity of R. communis seeds have also been reported previously [74] and antioxidant activity was comparable with present investigation. Nevertheless, the comparative studies based on different parts using different extraction methods were performed. So far, present investigation indicates that R. communis different parts had promising antioxidant activities; however, antioxidant activities were variable depending upon plant parts and extracting methods.
Table 1

Antioxidant profile of extracts of Ricinus communis different parts, extracted by different extraction methods

S. No.

Method

Plants part

TPC (mg/100 g)

TFC (mg/100 g)

DPPH inhibition (%) (0.1 mg/mL)

Linoleic acid inhibition (%)

R. Power (1 mg/mL) (OD)

1

ShakingC

Seedb

122 ± 3

15 ± 1

7.25 ± 0.3

43.56 ± 0.3

0.481 ± 0.8

2

Stemd

24 ± 1

6 ± 0.2

20 ± 0.2

12.46 ± 0.7

0.278 ± 0.3

3

Leavea

165 ± 1.5

71 ± 1

7.54 ± 0.2

57.38 ± 0.2

0.578 ± 0.6

4

Fruitc

94 ± 2

68 ± 2

5.14 ± 0.3

35.69 ± 0.4

0.396 ± 0.1

5

Roote

16 ± 1

4 ± 0.1

6.58 ± 0.8

10.84 ± 0.9

0.209 ± 0.7

6

SonicationA

Seeda

361 ± 2

171 ± 2.8

8.8 ± 0.6

87.28 ± 0.1

0.854 ± 0.3

7

Stemc

11 ± 0.3

4 ± 0.6

6.2 ± 0.9

8.14 ± 0.7

0.184 ± 0.2

8

Leaveb

58 ± 1

32 ± 1.2

10.45 ± 0.7

20.64 ± 0.3

0.356 ± 0.8

9

Fruitb

64 ± 2

46 ± 1.2

5.67 ± 0.1

23.54 ± 0.6

0.379 ± 0.3

10

Rootc

12 ± 0.5

2.8 ± 0.6

13.29 ± 0.7

11.39 ± 0.2

0.234 ± 0.9

11

SoxhletB

Seeda

149 ± 1.5

94 ± 0.4

7.42 ± 0.5

48.19 ± 0.3

0.523 ± 0.7

12

Stemc

5 ± 0.1

16 ± 0.1

14.33 ± 0.9

6.63 ± 0.5

0.194 ± 0.4

13

Leaveb

31 ± 1

39 ± 0.6

13.99 ± 0.4

26.32 ± 0.6

0.376 ± 0.6

14

Fruitb

23 ± 0.5

34 ± 0.3

6.9 ± 0.8

21.21 ± 0.9

0.362 ± 0.2

15

Rootc

9 ± 0.9

2 ± 0.1

8.24 ± 0.6

7.23 ± 0.3

0.231 ± 0.8

The values are the mean ± SD of triplicate experiments. Capital letters in superscripts are representing significant different among extraction methods (P < 0.05) and small letter in superscripts are representing significance difference (P < 0.05) in activity within plant parts for individual extraction methods

Toxicity

The cytotoxicity of R. communis different methanolic extract was evaluated through hemolytic and brine shrimp assays. The hemolytic activity of the extracts was compared with Triton X-100 (positive control-100% RBCs lysis) and PBS (negative control-0% lysis). The lysis results of both human and bovine RBCs are shown in Table 2. In case of shaking, R. communis methanolic extracts showed cytotoxicity in the range of 3.51–50.9% (human RBCs % lysis) and 2.23–44.91% (bovine RBCs % lysis), whereas sonication revealed the cytotoxicity in the range of 0.76–15.56% (human RBCs) and 0.71–13.32% (bovine RBCs) and in case of Soxhlet method, the human RBCs and bovine RBCs lysis percentages were 0.70–34.20% and 0.07–41%, respectively. The R. communis plant parts also showed different cytotoxic effects and in case of In the case of human RBCs, the cytotoxicity was in following order; seeds > fruits > leaves > roots > stem (shaking), leaves > roots > fruits > seeds > stem (sonication) and leaves > fruits > stem > roots > seed (Soxhlet). Similar trend was observed in case of bovine RBCs lysis, however, R. communis all parts showed slightly less RBCs lysis in case of bovine RBCs versus human RBCs.
Table 2

Human and bovine red blood cell lysis (RBCs) assays of Ricinus communis different parts, extracted by different extraction methods

S. No.

Method

R. communis

Human RBC

Bovine RBC

1

ShakingA

Seeda

50.91 ± 1.32

44.91 ± 0.34

2

Steme

3.51 ± 0.63

2.23 ± 0.08

3

Leavec

28.22 ± 0.27

26.58 ± 0.07

4

Fruitb

38.48 ± 0.37

37.34 ± 0.26

5

Rootd

12.62 ± 0.23

8.30 ± 0.51

6

SonicationB

Seedb

6.55 ± 0.19

5.55 ± 0.07

7

Stemc

0.76 ± 0.15

0.71 ± 0.03

8

Leavea

15.56 ± 0.33

13.32 ± 0.16

9

Fruita

12.05 ± 0.52

9.70 ± 0.10

10

Rootc

0.93 ± 0.71

0.80 ± 0.26

11

SoxhletC

Seede

0.70 ± 0.03

0.07 ± 0.08

12

Stemc

11.37 ± 0.15

9.99 ± 0.10

13

Leavea

34.20 ± 1.05

41.40 ± 0.56

14

Fruitb

19.43 ± 0.92

16.59 ± 0.68

15

Rootd

2.52 ± 0.86

1.87 ± 0.49

Explanations as given in Table 1

The brine shrimp lethality assay results are shown in Table 3. In case of shaking, the LC50 values were recorded of 0.40, 0.22, 1.49, 0.22, 3.71 concentrations (µg/mL) for seeds, stem, leaves, fruit and root, respectively, whereas seeds, stem, leaves, fruits and roots extracted by sonication method revealed the LC50 values of 9.92, 34.24, 2.12, 1.59, 60.92 (µg/mL), respectively and these values were 4.26, 0.72, 0.67, 8.62 and 33.60 (µg/mL) in case of Soxhlet extraction method. The LC90 values were found in the range of 345.42–1695.81 (µg/mL) (shaking), 660.50–14,794.40 (µg/mL) (sonication) and 641.62–15,047.80 (µg/mL) (Soxhlet). In case of brine shrimp assays, the plant different parts showed variable cytotoxicity level and extraction methods also affected the cytotoxicity level significantly. Overall, Soxhlet extracted samples showed higher cytotoxicity followed by sonication and shaking methods.
Table 3

Brine shrimp lethality assay of Ricinus communis different parts, extracted by different extraction methods

S. No.

Extraction

R. communis

LC50 (µg/mL)

95% confidence interval

LC90 (µg/mL)

95% confidence interval

1

Shaking

Seed

0.40

0.00–11.159

1695.81

239.99–5.92 × 1010

2

Stem

0.22

0.00–8.733

1405.67

177.77–2.69 × 1024

3

Leave

1.49

0.000119–12.838

345.42

81.46–5153.02

4

Fruit

0.22

0.00–8.733

1405.67

177.76–2.69 × 1024

5

Root

3.71

0.0099–20.963

446.66

130.65–4602.01

1

Sonication

Seed

9.92

0.0000033–75.920

13,212.00

1518.45–2.12 × 1011

2

Stem

34.24

0.0726049–164.453

14,794.40

2090.24–1908

3

Leave

2.12

0.00–29.647

5763.11

732.19–1.34 × 1013

4

Fruit

1.59

0.0000106–15.775

660.50

150.63–36,473.40

5

Root

60.92

4.793–186.931

4166.00

1214.41–95,587.90

1

Soxhlet

Seed

4.26

0.004573–26.076

786.29

217.29–17,185.70

2

Stem

0.72

0.00–13.359

1330.28

225.007–22,804

3

Leave

0.67

0.00–11.030

641.62

117.380–2756

4

Fruit

8.62

0.00243–54.525

3924.43

776.687–2411

5

Root

33.60

0.0438–162.661

15,047.80

2051.87–51,572

Ricinus communis methanolic extracts mutagenic results are shown in Table 4. In case of shaking extraction method, the TA98 revertant colonies were 2278, 2356, 2018, 2593 and 2628 (revertant colonies) for 50 µg extract/plate of seeds, stem, leaves, fruits and roots, respectively, whereas, 2139, 2072, 1975, 2471 and 2318 revertant colonies were recorded in case of sonication and for Soxhlet 1862, 1939, 2183, 2028 and 2319 revertant colonies were observed in response of seeds, stem, leaves, fruits and roots, respectively. TA100 strain showed a similar mutagenicity trend based on extraction methods and plant parts, however, the colonies reversion in case of TA100 were slightly higher than TA98 strain. In comparison to control, R. communis plant showed mutagenic nature. Regarding toxicity, there is lack of reports investigating the cytotoxicity and mutagenicity of R. communis using hemolytic, brine shrimp and Ames tests. However, these bioassays found to be short-term assays to evaluate the toxicity of extracts. These findings are in line with previous studies (Table 5), in which toxicity of this plant has also been reported in different models i.e., abrin and ricin (in R. communis extracts) reported to toxic by studying to SH- and S–S groups [75]. In another study, R. communis toxicosis in a sheep flock was studied and R. communis showed intoxication, in which most of the animals showed profuse watery diarrhoea, dehydration, weakness, salivation, mydriasis, teeth grinding, hypothermia and recumbency. High haematocrit, creatinine, high concentration of serum BUN and phosphorus and high activity of serum CK and AST were also observed along with cardiac haemorrhage, severe gastroenteritis, necrosis and acute tubular necrosis in kidneys and hepatic necrosis [76]. Antifeedant and toxic effects of leaf extracts of R. communis were also studied and results revealed that the extract had moderate effects towards these pests and author suggested the use of plant extract as a potential source of bioactive compounds for crop protectant against pest [77]. Antidiabetic activity of ethanolic extract of roots of R. communis also studied and 500 mg/kg BW showed promising efficiency in lowering the fasting blood glucose [78]. In view of results of the present investigation and reported studies, it can be concluded that R. communis is a potential source of bioactive compounds and could be used for the development of drugs for the treatment of various ailments.
Table 4

Mutagenicity of Ricinus communis different parts extracts, extracted by different extraction methods, tested by TA98 and TA100 strains of Salmonella typhimurium

S. No.

Methods

Plant part

Revertant colonies (mean ± SD)

TA98

TA100

1

Shaking

Seed

2278 ± 65

2773 ± 92

2

Stem

2356 ± 53

3056 ± 172

3

Leave

2018 ± 49

2939 ± 169

4

Fruit

2593 ± 128

3263 ± 174

5

Root

2628 ± 79

2562 ± 137

6

Sonication

Seed

2139 ± 130

3461 ± 147

7

Stem

2072 ± 219

3392 ± 67

8

Leave

1975 ± 67

3172 ± 119

9

Fruit

2471 ± 133

2938 ± 87

10

Root

2318 ± 104

2837 ± 234

11

Soxhlet

Seed

1862 ± 53

2978 ± 135

12

Stem

1939 ± 117

3038 ± 248

13

Leave

2183 ± 143

3365 ± 94

14

Fruit

2028 ± 138

3269 ± 182

15

Root

2319 ± 93

2957 ± 149

16

Positive control

0.25 (µg/plate)

3267 ± 278

 
  

0.5 (µg/plate)

 

4720 ± 346

Negative (solvent) control; DMSO dimethyl sulphoxide, PC positive control: for TA98, TN (0.25 µg/plate); for TA100, NQNO (0.5 µg/plate); Values are insignificant (P < 0.05) among plant parts and extraction methods, and significantly different (P < 0.05) form positive control

Table 5

Toxicities/activities reported for Ricinus communis plant

S. No.

Plant

Toxicities

References

1

Ricinus communis

Toxicity against SV40-transformed 3T3 fibroblasts

[79]

2

Ricinus communis

Toxicity against brown Hisex chicks fed diets containing 0.5% R. communis seed

[80]

3

Ricinus communis

Toxicity against leaf-cutting ant Atta sexdens rubropilosa Forel

[81]

4

Ricinus communis

Toxicity against nests of Atta sexdens rubropilosa

[82]

5

Ricinus communis

Toxicosis in a sheep flock

[76]

6

Ricinus communis

Toxicity against pests

[77]

7

Ricinus communis

Antidiabetic activity

[78]

8

Ricinus communis

Anti-tumor activity

[83]

DNA protection

DNA protection assay was performed by inducing DNA damage by UV light and H2O2. The NDA damage caused by H2O2 and UV radiation and extracts protection efficiency was studied using Plasmid pBR322. In DNA damage, H2O2 generates OH· as shown in Eq. 4, which are responsible for DNA breakage through oxidative reaction (Eq. 5) [84, 85]. The Plasmid pBR322 DNA damage and protective results are shown in Fig. 1. The Plasmid pBR322 DNA ladder band is clear (lane 1), whereas Plasmid pBR322 DNA treated with H2O2 revealed that DNA damage was damaged (lane 3). The UV light and H2O2 in combination also induced Plasmid pBR322 DNA (lane 4). The Plasmid pBR322 DNA treated with R. communis extracts (extracted by different methods) in the presence of H2O2 + UV results are shown in lanes 5–12. Results revealed that H2O2 + UV induced Plasmid pBR322 DNA damage was protected. The H2O2 + UV treated DNA converted the Plasmid pBR322 into open circular form, whereas upon treatment with the extract regained the native form of Plasmid pBR322 DNA, which revealed the R. communis extracts protected DNA from the OH· induced damage. As it is well known that OH· is a strong oxidative agent and can damage the DNA by oxidation process, which indicates that free radical induced DNA damage cab be protected using R. communis extract. Since Plasmid DNA is damaged by OH· radical by free radical-induced chain reaction mechanism and OH· react with nitrogenous bases producing base free radical and other radicals. The base radical in turn reacts with the sugar moiety causing breakage of sugar phosphate backbone of nucleic acid resulting in strand break [85, 86]. Previous studies also supported these results that plant extract can protect DNA damage, i.e., D. bipinnata extract prevented the oxidative damage to DNA in the presence of a DNA damaging agent (Fenton’s reagent) at a concentration of 50 μg/mL. Also, the presence of extract protected yeast cells in a dose-dependent manner from DNA damaging agent [85]. Recently, the DNA damage inhibition potential of a methanolic extract of C. carandas leaves were also studied [87]. It was reported that extract showed significant H2O2 scavenging activity (median inhibitory concentration, 84.03 μg/mL) and completely protected pBR322 Plasmid DNA from free radical-mediated oxidative stress. Authors correlated the DNA damage inhibition with high content of phenolic compounds in C. carandas extracts. In another study, the free-radical scavenging properties and potential to prevent DNA damage of 56 extracts from 14 medicinal plants were studied. The extracts protected DNA against photolyzed H2O2-induced oxidative damage by all plant extracts [88]. So far, results revealed that the R. communis extract has ability to protect DNA damage and present study provides roadmap for identification and isolation of bioactive compounds and possible use to manage the free radical induced diseases.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

DNA damage/protection effect of methanol extract of Ricinus communis exposed to H2O2 and UV induced oxidative damage on pBR322. Lane 1 = 1 Kb DNA ladder: lane 2 = Plasmid pBR322 DNA without treatment (super coiled); lane 3 = Plasmid pBR322 DNA treated with H2O2 (open circular or damaged), lane 4 = Plasmid pBR322 DNA; treated with H2O2 + UV (open circular or damaged); lane 5 = Plasmid pBR322 DNA treated seed extract by shaking method + H2O2; lane 6 = Plasmid pBR322 DNA treated with stem extract by shaking method + H2O2; lane 7 = Plasmid pBR322 DNA treated with leaves extract by shaking method + H2O2; lane 8 = Plasmid pBR322 DNA treated with fruits extract by shaking method + H2O2; lane 9 = Plasmid pBR322 DNA treated with seeds extract by shaking method + H2O2 + UV light); lane 10 = Plasmid pBR322 DNA treated with stems extract by shaking method + H2O2 + UV); lane 11 = Plasmid pBR322 DNA treated with leaves extract by shaking method + H2O2 + UV); lane 12 = Plasmid pBR322 DNA treated with fruits extract by shaking method + H2O2 + UV)

$${\text{H}}_{2} {\text{O}}_{2} {\text{--}}^{ \wedge } {\text{-}}^{ \wedge } {\text{--}}{>} 2{\text{OH}} \cdot$$
(4)
$${\text{RH}} + {\text{OH}} \cdot \to {\text{H}}_{ 2} {\text{O}}/{\text{N}} - {\text{bases }} + {\text{R}} \cdot \to {\text{Oxidative by-products}}$$
(5)

Conclusions

Cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, antioxidant as well as DNA protective efficiency of R. communis (seeds, stem, leaves, fruit and root) methanolic extracts were evaluated. Extracts showed variable antioxidant activity among plant parts and extraction methods. The R. communis also protected Plasmid pBR322 DNA from H2O2 and UV damage. Bioassays (Hemolytic, brine shrimp and Ames test) revealed that the R. communis methanolic extracts have compounds responsible for mild to moderate to moderate toxicity. R. communis may be a potential source of compounds for the development of new medicine and future studies will be focused on the identification of compounds responsible for bioactivity.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

MA, AA, AA and IMT designed and performed experiments as well as collected the data, whereas MA, ZM and MI handled data analyses, interpreted results and preparation of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Authors are highly thankful to the Higher Education Commission Islamabad, Pakistan, for providing funds under IPFP program (No-356SRGP/R&DHEC/2014). We are also thankful to Dr. Ehtisham-ul-Haque and Dr. Tariq Hussain for their guidance in preparation of manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Basic Sciences, Section Biochemistry, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Jhang Campus, Jhang, 35200, Pakistan
(2)
College of Allied Health Professional, Directorate of Medical Science, Govt. College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan
(3)
Department of Biochemistry, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, 60800, Pakistan
(4)
Department of Applied Chemistry and Biochemistry, Govt. College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan
(5)
Department of Chemistry, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan

References

  1. Bhatia H, Sharma YP, Manhas R, Kumar K (2014) Ethnomedicinal plants used by the villagers of district Udhampur, J & K, India. J Ethnopharmacol 151(2):1005–1018Google Scholar
  2. Tsouh Fokou PV, Kissi-Twum AA, Yeboah-Manu D, Appiah-Opong R, Addo P, Tchokouaha Yamthe LR et al (2016) In vitro activity of selected West African medicinal plants against Mycobacterium ulcerans disease. Molecules 21(4):445Google Scholar
  3. Thomford NE, Awortwe C, Dzobo K, Adu F, Chopera D, Wonkam A et al (2016) Inhibition of CYP2B6 by medicinal plant extracts: implication for use of efavirenz and nevirapine-based highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART) in resource-limited settings. Molecules 21(2):211Google Scholar
  4. Zahir AA, Rahuman AA, Bagavan A, Santhoshkumar T, Mohamed RR, Kamaraj C et al (2010) Evaluation of botanical extracts against Haemaphysalis bispinosa Neumann and Hippobosca maculata Leach. Parasitol Res 107(3):585–592Google Scholar
  5. Kodjo TA, Gbénonchi M, Sadate A, Komi A, Yaovi G, Dieudonné M et al (2011) Bio-insecticidal effects of plant extracts and oil emulsions of Ricinus communis L. (Malpighiales: Euphorbiaceae) on the diamondback, Plutella xylostella L. (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) under laboratory and semi-field conditions. J Appl Biosci 43:2899–2914Google Scholar
  6. Rana M, Dhamija H, Prashar B, Sharma S (2012) Ricinus communis L.—a review. Int J PharmTech Res 4(4):1706–1711Google Scholar
  7. Fürstenberg-Hägg J, Zagrobelny M, Bak S (2013) Plant defense against insect herbivores. Int J Mol Sci 14(5):10242–10297Google Scholar
  8. Bartwal A, Mall R, Lohani P, Guru S, Arora S (2013) Role of secondary metabolites and brassinosteroids in plant defense against environmental stresses. J Plant Growth Regul 32(1):216–232Google Scholar
  9. Asif M (2015) Pharmacologically potentials of different substituted coumarin derivatives. Chem Int 1(1):1–11Google Scholar
  10. Asif M (2015) Chemistry and antioxidant activity of plants containing some phenolic compounds. Chem Int 1(1):35–52Google Scholar
  11. Asif M (2015) Antiviral and antiparasitic activities of various substituted triazole derivatives: A mini. Chem Int 1(2):71–80Google Scholar
  12. Asif M (2015) Anti-tubercular activity of some six membered heterocycle compounds. Chem Int 1(3):134–163Google Scholar
  13. Asif M (2015) Anti-neuropathic and anticonvulsant activities of various substituted triazoles analogues. Chem Int 1(4):174–183Google Scholar
  14. World Health Organization (2002) WHO traditional medicine strategy 2002–2005. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. Adaramola B, Onigbinde A (2017) Influence of extraction technique on the mineral content and antioxidant capacity of edible oil extracted from ginger rhizome. Chem Int 3(1):1–7Google Scholar
  16. Adaramola B, Onigbinde A, Shokunbi O (2016) Physiochemical properties and antioxidant potential of Persea Americana seed oil. Chem Int 2(3):168–175Google Scholar
  17. Hamid AA, Oguntoye SO, Alli SO, Akomolafe GA, Aderinto A, Otitigbe A et al (2016) Chemical composition, antimicrobial and free radical scavenging activities of Grewia pubescens. Chem Int 2(4):254–261Google Scholar
  18. Gupta AK (2003) Quality standards of Indian medicinal plants. Indian Counc Med Res 1:123–129Google Scholar
  19. Samad MA, Hashim SH, Simarani K, Yaacob JS (2016) Antibacterial properties and effects of fruit chilling and extract storage on antioxidant activity, total phenolic and anthocyanin content of four date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) cultivars. Molecules 21(4):419Google Scholar
  20. Iqbal M (2016) Vicia faba bioassay for environmental toxicity monitoring: a review. Chemosphere 144:785–802Google Scholar
  21. Murad W, Azizullah A, Adnan M, Tariq A, Khan KU, Waheed S et al (2013) Ethnobotanical assessment of plant resources of Banda Daud Shah, District Karak, Pakistan. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 9:77Google Scholar
  22. Caamal-Fuentes EE, Peraza-Sánchez SR, Torres-Tapia LW, Moo-Puc RE (2015) Isolation and identification of cytotoxic compounds from Aeschynomene fascicularis, a Mayan medicinal plant. Molecules 20(8):13563–13574Google Scholar
  23. Swamy MK, Sinniah UR (2015) A comprehensive review on the phytochemical constituents and pharmacological activities of Pogostemon cablin Benth.: an aromatic medicinal plant of industrial importance. Molecules 20(5):8521–8547Google Scholar
  24. Duarte AE, Waczuk EP, Roversi K, da Silva MAP, Barros LM, da Cunha FAB et al (2015) Polyphenolic composition and evaluation of antioxidant activity, osmotic fragility and cytotoxic effects of Raphiodon echinus (Nees & Mart.) Schauer. Molecules 21(1):2Google Scholar
  25. Tsai TH, Huang WC, Ying HT, Kuo YH, Shen CC, Lin YK et al (2016) Wild bitter melon leaf extract inhibits Porphyromonas gingivalis-induced inflammation: identification of active compounds through bioassay-guided isolation. Molecules 21(4):454Google Scholar
  26. Chan CK, Chan G, Awang K, Abdul Kadir H (2016) Deoxyelephantopin from elephantopus scaber inhibits HCT116 human colorectal carcinoma cell growth through apoptosis and cell cycle arrest. Molecules 21(3):385Google Scholar
  27. Kang J, Yue XL, Chen CS, Li JH, Ma HJ (2015) Synthesis and herbicidal activity of 5-heterocycloxy-3-methyl-1-substituted-1H-pyrazoles. Molecules 21(1):39Google Scholar
  28. Huo LN, Wang W, Zhang CY, Shi HB, Liu Y, Liu XH et al (2015) Bioassay-guided isolation and identification of xanthine oxidase inhibitory constituents from the leaves of Perilla frutescens. Molecules 20(10):17848–17859Google Scholar
  29. Ge Y, Liu P, Yang R, Zhang L, Chen H, Camara I et al (2015) Insecticidal constituents and activity of alkaloids from Cynanchum mongolicum. Molecules 20(9):17483–17492Google Scholar
  30. Spiegler V, Sendker J, Petereit F, Liebau E, Hensel A (2015) Bioassay-guided fractionation of a leaf extract from Combretum mucronatum with anthelmintic activity: oligomeric procyanidins as the active principle. Molecules 20(8):14810–14832Google Scholar
  31. Ujević I, Vuletić N, Lušić J, Nazlić N, Kušpilić G (2015) Bioaccumulation of trace metals in mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) from Mali Ston Bay during DSP toxicity episodes. Molecules 20(7):13031–13040Google Scholar
  32. Glaser J, Schultheis M, Moll H, Hazra B, Holzgrabe U (2015) Antileishmanial and cytotoxic compounds from Valeriana wallichii and identification of a novel nepetolactone derivative. Molecules 20(4):5740–5753Google Scholar
  33. Li XX, Yu MF, Ruan X, Zhang YZ, Wang Q (2014) Phytotoxicity of 4, 8-dihydroxy-1-tetralone isolated from Carya cathayensis Sarg. to various plant species. Molecules 19(10):15452–15467Google Scholar
  34. Michael A, Thompson C, Abramovitz M (1956) Artemia salina as a test organism for bioassay. Science 123:464Google Scholar
  35. Vanhaecke P, Persoone G, Claus C, Sorgeloos P (1981) Proposal for a short-term toxicity test with Artemia nauplii. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 5(3):382–387Google Scholar
  36. Sleet R, Brendel K (1983) Improved methods for harvesting and counting synchronous populations of Artemia nauplii for use in developmental toxicology. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 7(5):435–446Google Scholar
  37. Solis PN, Wright CW, Anderson MM, Gupta MP, Phillipson JD (1993) A microwell cytotoxicity assay using Artemia salina (brine shrimp). Planta Med 59(3):250–252Google Scholar
  38. Favilla M, Macchia L, Gallo A, Altomare C (2006) Toxicity assessment of metabolites of fungal biocontrol agents using two different (Artemia salina and Daphnia magna) invertebrate bioassays. Food Chem Toxicol 44(11):1922–1931Google Scholar
  39. Krishnaraju AV, Rao TV, Sundararaju D, Vanisree M, Tsay HS, Subbaraju GV (2005) Assessment of bioactivity of Indian medicinal plants using brine shrimp (Artemia salina) lethality assay. Int J Appl Sci Eng 3(2):125–134Google Scholar
  40. Mbwambo ZH, Moshi MJ, Masimba PJ, Kapingu MC, Nondo RS (2007) Antimicrobial activity and brine shrimp toxicity of extracts of Terminalia brownii roots and stem. BMC Complment Altern Med 7(1):9Google Scholar
  41. MacRae TH, Pandey AS (1991) Effects of metals on early life stages of the brine shrimp, Artemia: a developmental toxicity assay. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 20(2):247–252Google Scholar
  42. Beattie KA, Ressler J, Wiegand C, Krause E, Codd GA, Steinberg CE et al (2003) Comparative effects and metabolism of two microcystins and nodularin in the brine shrimp Artemia salina. Aquat Toxicol 62(3):219–226Google Scholar
  43. Fatope M, Ibrahim H, Takeda Y (1993) Screening of higher plants reputed as pesticides using the brine shrimp lethality assay. Pharm Biol 31(4):250–254Google Scholar
  44. Iqbal M, Bhatti IA (2014) Re-utilization option of industrial wastewater treated by advanced oxidation process. Pak J Agric Sci 51(4):1141–1147Google Scholar
  45. Iqbal M, Bhatti IA, Zia-ur-Rehman M, Bhatti HN, Shahid M (2014) Efficiency of advanced oxidation processes for detoxification of industrial effluents. Asian J Chem 26(14):4291–4296Google Scholar
  46. Iqbal M, Bhatti IA (2015) Gamma radiation/H2O2 treatment of a nonylphenol ethoxylates: degradation, cytotoxicity and mutagenicity evaluation. J Hazard Mater 299:351–360Google Scholar
  47. Iqbal M (2015) Cytotoxicity and mutagenicity evaluation of gamma radiation and hydrogen peroxide treated textile effluents using bioassays. J Environ Chem Eng 3:1912–1917Google Scholar
  48. Qureshi K, Ahmad M, Bhatti I, Iqbal M, Khan A (2015) Cytotoxicity reduction of wastewater treated by advanced oxidation process. Chem Int 1:53–59Google Scholar
  49. Hartl M, Humpf HU (2000) Toxicity assessment of fumonisins using the brine shrimp (Artemia salina) bioassay. Food Chem Toxicol 38(12):1097–1102Google Scholar
  50. Pelka M, Danzl C, Distler W, Petschelt A (2000) A new screening test for toxicity testing of dental materials. J Dent 28(5):341–345Google Scholar
  51. Bilal M, Asgher M, Iqbal M, Hu H, Zhang X (2016) Chitosan beads immobilized manganese peroxidase catalytic potential for detoxification and decolorization of textile effluent. Int J Biol Macromol 89:181–189Google Scholar
  52. Bilal M, Iqbal M, Hu H, Zhang X (2016) Mutagenicity and cytotoxicity assessment of biodegraded textile effluent by Ca-alginate encapsulated manganese peroxidase. Biochem Eng J 109:153–161Google Scholar
  53. Iqbal M, Abbas M, Arshad M, Hussain T, Khan AU, Masood N et al (2015) Gamma radiation treatment for reducing cytotoxicity and mutagenicity in industrial wastewater. Pol J Environ Stud 24:2745–2750Google Scholar
  54. Iqbal M, Bhatti IA (2015) Gamma radiation/H2O2 treatment of a nonylphenol ethoxylates: degradation, cytotoxicity, and mutagenicity evaluation. J Hazard Mater 299:351–360Google Scholar
  55. Nouren S, Bhatti HN, Iqbal M, Bibi I, Kamal S, Sadaf S, Sultan M, Kausar A, Safa Y (2017) By-product identification and phytotoxicity of biodegraded Direct Yellow 4 dye. Chemosphere 169:474–484Google Scholar
  56. Fischer D, Li Y, Ahlemeyer B, Krieglstein J, Kissel T (2003) In vitro cytotoxicity testing of polycations: influence of polymer structure on cell viability and hemolysis. Biomaterials 24:1121–1131Google Scholar
  57. Ames BN, McCann J, Yamasaki E (1975) Methods for detecting carcinogens and mutagens with the Salmonella/mammalian-microsome mutagenicity test. Mutat Res/Environ Mutagen Relat Subj 31(6):347–363Google Scholar
  58. Ames BN, Durston WE, Yamasaki E, Lee FD (1973) Carcinogens are mutagens: a simple test system combining liver homogenates for activation and bacteria for detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci 70(8):2281–2285Google Scholar
  59. Ames BN, Lee FD, Durston WE (1973) An improved bacterial test system for the detection and classification of mutagens and carcinogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci 70(3):782–786Google Scholar
  60. Florin I, Rutberg L, Curvall M, Enzell CR (1980) Screening of tabacco smoke constituents for mutagenicity using the Ames’ test. Toxicology 15(3):219–232Google Scholar
  61. Vargas VMF, Motta V, Henriques JAP (1993) Mutagenic activity detected by the Ames test in river water under the influence of petrochemical industries. Mutat Res/Gen Toxicol 319(1):31–45Google Scholar
  62. Czeczot H, Tudek B, Kusztelak J, Szymczyk T, Dobrowolska B, Glinkowska G et al (1990) Isolation and studies of the mutagenic activity in the Ames test of flavonoids naturally occurring in medical herbs. Mutat Res/Gen Toxicol 240(3):209–216Google Scholar
  63. Reifferscheid G, Heil J (1996) Validation of the SOS/umu test using test results of 486 chemicals and comparison with the Ames test and carcinogenicity data. Mutat Res/Gen Toxicol 369(3):129–145Google Scholar
  64. Chaovanalikit A, Wrolstad R (2004) Total anthocyanins and total phenolics of fresh and processed cherries and their antioxidant properties. J Food Sci 69(1):FCT67–FCT72Google Scholar
  65. Dewanto V, Wu X, Adom KK, Liu RH (2002) Thermal processing enhances the nutritional value of tomatoes by increasing total antioxidant activity. J Agric Food Chem 50(10):3010–3014Google Scholar
  66. Bozin B, Mimica-Dukic N, Simin N, Anackov G (2006) Characterization of the volatile composition of essential oils of some Lamiaceae spices and the antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of the entire oils. J Agric Food Chem 54(5):1822–1828Google Scholar
  67. Iqbal S, Bhanger M, Anwar F (2005) Antioxidant properties and components of some commercially available varieties of rice bran in Pakistan. Food Chem 93(2):265–272Google Scholar
  68. Yen GC, Duh PD, Chuang DY (2000) Antioxidant activity of anthraquinones and anthrone. Food Chem 70(4):437–441Google Scholar
  69. Powell W, Catranis C, Maynard C (2000) Design of self-processing antimicrobial peptides for plant protection. Lett Appl Microbiol 31(2):163–168Google Scholar
  70. Coe FG, Parikh DM, Johnson CA (2010) Alkaloid presence and brine shrimp (Artemia salina) bioassay of medicinal species of eastern Nicaragua. Pharm Biol 48(4):439–445Google Scholar
  71. Maron DM, Ames BN (1983) Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat Res/Environ Mutagen Relat Subj 113(3):173–215Google Scholar
  72. Verschaeve L, Van Staden J (2008) Mutagenic and antimutagenic properties of extracts from South African traditional medicinal plants. J Ethnopharmacol 119(3):575–587Google Scholar
  73. Iqbal J, Zaib S, Farooq U, Khan A, Bibi I, Suleman S (2012) Antioxidant, Antimicrobial, and free radical scavenging potential of aerial parts of Periploca aphylla and Ricinus communis. ISRN Pharmacol 2012:1–6Google Scholar
  74. Surveswaran S, Cai YZ, Corke H, Sun M (2007) Systematic evaluation of natural phenolic antioxidants from 133 Indian medicinal plants. Food Chem 102(3):938–953Google Scholar
  75. Olsnes S, Refsnes K, Christensen TB, Pihl A (1975) Studies on the structure and properties of the lectins from Abrus precatorius and Ricinus communis. Biochim Biophys Acta-Protein Struct 405(1):1–10Google Scholar
  76. Aslani MR, Maleki M, Mohri M, Sharifi K, Najjar-Nezhad V, Afshari E (2007) Castor bean (Ricinus communis) toxicosis in a sheep flock. Toxicon 49(3):400–406Google Scholar
  77. Devanand P, Rani PU (2008) Biological potency of certain plant extracts in management of two lepidopteran pests of Ricinus communis L. J Biopest 1(2):170–176Google Scholar
  78. Shokeen P, Anand P, Murali YK, Tandon V (2008) Antidiabetic activity of 50% ethanolic extract of Ricinus communis and its purified fractions. Food Chem Toxicol 46(11):3458–3466Google Scholar
  79. Nicolson GL, Lacorbiere M, Hunter TR (1975) Mechanism of cell entry and toxicity of an affinity-purified lectin from Ricinus communis and its differential effects on normal and virus-transformed fibroblasts. Cancer Res 35(1):144–155Google Scholar
  80. El Badwi S, Adam S, Hapke H (1995) Comparative toxicity of Ricinus communis and Jatropha curcas in Brown Hisex chicks. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr 102(2):75–77Google Scholar
  81. Bigi MF, Torkomian VL, De Groote ST, Hebling MJA, Bueno OC, Pagnocca FC et al (2004) Activity of Ricinus communis (Euphorbiaceae) and ricinine against the leaf-cutting ant Atta sexdens rubropilosa (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and the symbiotic fungus Leucoagaricus gongylophorus. Pest Manag Sci 60(9):933–938Google Scholar
  82. Hebling MJA, Maroti PS, Bueno OC, Da Silva OA, Pagnocca FC (1996) Toxic effects of leaves of Ricinus communis (Euphorbiaceae) to laboratory nests of Atta sexdens rubropilosa (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Bull Entomol Res 86(03):253–256Google Scholar
  83. Wei CH, Koh C (1978) Crystalline ricin D, a toxic anti-tumor lectin from seeds of Ricinus communis. J Biol Chem 253(6):2061–2066Google Scholar
  84. Iqbal M, Bhatti IA (2015) Gamma radiation/H2O2 treatment of a nonylphenol ethoxylates: degradation, cytotoxicity, and mutagenicity evaluation. J Hazard Mater 299:351–360Google Scholar
  85. Golla U, Bhimathati SSR (2014) Evaluation of antioxidant and DNA damage protection activity of the hydroalcoholic extract of Desmostachya bipinnata L. Stapf. Sci World J 2014:1–6Google Scholar
  86. O’Neill P (1987) The chemical basis of radiation biology. Int J Rad Biol Relat Stud Phys Chem Med 52(6):976Google Scholar
  87. Verma K, Shrivastava D, Kumar G (2015) Antioxidant activity and DNA damage inhibition in vitro by a methanolic extract of Carissa carandas (Apocynaceae) leaves. J Taibah Univ Sci 9(1):34–40Google Scholar
  88. Guha G, Rajkumar V, Mathew L, Kumar RA (2011) The antioxidant and DNA protection potential of Indian tribal medicinal plants. Turk J Biol 35(2):233–242Google Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement