Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Investigating the Effects of Bark Extract and Volatile Oil of Pinus Eldarica Against Cisplatin-Induced Genotoxicity on Huvecs Cell Line Publisher



Sharifan A1 ; Etebari M1 ; Zolfaghari B2 ; Aliomrani M1
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Department of Pharmacology, Isfahan Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Center, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
  2. 2. Department of Pharmacognosy, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Source: Toxicology Research Published:2021


Abstract

Cisplatin is used for treating multiple types of cancers. Alongside its therapeutic effects, there are side effects, including cytotoxicity and genotoxicity for healthy cells, which are mainly related to radical oxygen species (ROS) production by the drug. These side effects could troublesome the treatment process. Previous studies have suggested that members of Pinaceae family are rich sources of antioxidant components. This article investigates the antioxidant activity (AA) of Pinus eldarica (Pinaceae) along with its cyto/genoprotective effects following cisplatin exposure on human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) cell line. Pinus eldarica’s hydroalcoholic bark extract (PEHABE) and P. eldarica’s needle volatile oil (PENVO) were prepared using maceration and hydrodistillation methods, respectively. PENVO was analysed via gas chromatograph-mass spectrometry, and the total phenolic content of PEHBAE was measured by folin-ciocalteu reagent. AA of both PEHABE and PENVO were determined using DPPH assay. Moreover, MTT test was used to determine the cytoprotective effects of both agents. Comet and micronucleus (MN) tests were also performed to investigate the genoprotective effect of P. eldarica. Germacrene D (35.72%) was the main component of PENVO. PEHABE showed higher AA compared with PENVO, with the highest AA observed at 25 and 250 μg/ml, respectively. Both PENVO and PEHABE were cytoprotective, with the latter having mitogenic effects on cells at 75, 100, and 200 μg/ml concentrations (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001). Also, both PEHABE and PENVO showed genoprotective effects against cisplatin in comet assay (P < 0.001). As PEHABE’s concentrations were increased, a reduced number of MN formation was observed after cisplatin’s exposure (P < 0.001). In conclusion, PEHABE had higher AA compared with PENVO, and both agents had cyto/genoprotective effects on HUVECs. © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Other Related Docs
15. Genotoxicity and Phytotoxicity Comparison of Cigarette Butt With Cigarette Ash, Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2020)
29. Has Vitamin E Any Shreds of Evidence in Cisplatin-Induced Toxicity, Journal of Biochemical and Molecular Toxicology (2019)