Leaf Extracts of Cistus ladanifer Exhibit Potent Antioxidant and Antiproliferative Activities against Liver, Prostate and Breast Cancer Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical composition, antioxidant, and antiproliferative properties of C. ladanifer crude extracts, including hexane (Hex), dichloromethane (DCM), ethyl acetate (E.A) and ethanol (EtOH) were investigated. The chemical composition of C. ladanifer crude extracts was determined by use of GC-MS, whereas DPPH and FRAP assays were employed to determine its antioxidant capacity. The obtained results showed that the ethanolic extract exhibited a significant antioxidant effect recording an IC50 value of 266.6 ± 0.828 μg/mL with DPPH assay, and a higher reducing power 0.494 ± 0.035 using the FRAP test. The extracts exhibited significant antiproliferative activity against three cancer cell lines. The DCM extract exhibited the highest total polyphenol content (76.066 ± 9.978 μg AGE/mg) and was revealed to be more effective against HepG2 (31.54 ± 0.242 μg/mL). The Hex extract that presented the highest flavonoid content (50.209 ± 3.805 μg CE/mg) exhibited the highest antiproliferative activity against 22Rv1 and MDA-MB-231 recording IC50 values 11.32 ± 2.126 μg/mL and 82.4 ± 1.124 μg/mL, respectively. All four extracts exhibited minimal toxicity against human skin-derived fibroblast cells indicating the specificity of their observed anticancer activity. GC-MS analysis identified interesting phytochemicals underlying the obtained antioxidant and cytotoxic activities. Taken together, results of the current study highlight the significance of C. ladanifer as a valuable source of antioxidant and anticancer bioactive compounds, thereby warranting further detailed investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".