↓ Skip to main content

Antioxidant potential, total phenolic and total flavonoid contents of Rhododendron anthopogonoides and its protective effect on hypoxia-induced injury in PC12 cells

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antioxidant potential, total phenolic and total flavonoid contents of Rhododendron anthopogonoides and its protective effect on hypoxia-induced injury in PC12 cells
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12906-015-0820-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linlin Jing, Huiping Ma, Pengcheng Fan, Rongmin Gao, Zhengping Jia

Abstract

Rhododendron anthopogonoides Maxim, a kind of traditional Tibetan medicine, has been used to remove body heat, body detoxification, cough, asthma, stomachic and swelling, eliminate abundant phlegm and inflammatory for a long time. In the present study, the total phenols and total flavonoid contents as well as antioxidative properties of the crude extract and solvent fractions of R. anthopogonoides were determined using seven antioxidant assays. Additionally, the protective effect of the extracts on hypoxia-induced injury in PC12 cells was also investigated. The content of total flavonoid and total phenolic was determined by the aluminum colorimetric method and Folin-Ciocalteu assay, respectively. In vitro antioxidant study, the effect of the crude extract and solvent fractions on total antioxidant activity, reducing power, DPPH radical scavenging, ABTS radical scavenging, superoxide radical scavenging, hydroxyl radical scavenging and nitric oxide radical scavenging were examined. The correlation between the phenolic and flavonoid content of the extracts and their antioxidant properties also analyzed. Furthermore, the protective effect of extracts on hypoxia-induced damage on PC12 cells was investigated by cell viability, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release, malondialdehyde (MDA) production and the activities of antioxidant enzymes. Our results showed that ethyl acetate and n-butanol fractions had higher content of phenolics and flavonoid compounds than other fractions. Except ABTS radical assay, n-butanol fraction exhibited the strongest antioxidant activity. While the hexane fraction showed the lowest antioxidant activity. Ethyl acetate also presented excellent antioxidant activity, which was just lower than n-butanol fraction. Significant correlation between the phenolic, flavonoid content of the extract and fractions with antioxidant assay excluding ABTS, OH scavenging assay was observed. Moreover, ethyl acetate and n-butanol fractions showed protective effect in PC12 cell under hypoxia condition, while crude extract and water fraction had no protective effect. In contrast, hexane fraction exhibited strong cytoprotective effect. Further study indicated that pretreatment of PC12 cells with ethyl acetate and n-butanol fractions, prior to hypoxia exposure, significantly increased the survival of cells and the activities of SOD, CAT, GSH-Px and T-AOC, as well as reduced the level of LDH and MDA. The gathered data demonstrated that ethyl acetate and n-butanol fractions were able to protect PC12 cells against hypoxia induced injury through direct free radical scavenging and modulation of endogenous antioxidant enzymes. These findings suggested that ethyl acetate and n-butanol fractions of R. anthopogonoides had significant antioxidant activity and could prevent PC12 cells against hypoxia-induced injury. So it might be regarded as an excellent source of antioxidants and had great potential to explore as therapeutic agent for preventing hypoxia related sickness in future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 156 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 9%
Researcher 9 6%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 47 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 7%
Chemistry 11 7%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 51 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,288,585
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,978
of 3,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,229
of 266,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#71
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.