MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407920505 · doi:10.1201/9781003616283-172

Anticancer Potential of Piperine in Human Oral Cancer Cell Lines—An In-Vitro Study

2025· book-chapter· en· W4407920505 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nisha M. Afrin, R. Priyadharshini, Selvaraj Jayaraman, Palati Sinduja

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPiperaceae Chemical and Biological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiperineIn vitroMedicinePharmacologyCancerTraditional medicineCancer researchChemistryInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Cancer is a complex disease characterized by abnormal and uncontrolled cell growth. Oral cavity cancer is the result of a multifaceted process involving three stages: Initiation, Promotion, and Development. Piperine, a compound traditionally used as a savory condiment and flavor enhancer, as well as in traditional medicine, possesses a wide array of pharmacological and biochemical properties. These include antioxidant, anti-carcinogenic, antibacterial, antifungal, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and hepatoprotective actions. This study aims to assess the potential of Piperine as an anti-tumor agent in human oral cancer cell lines. Materials and Methods: We sourced trypsin-EDTA, fetal bovine serum (FBS), antibiotics-antimycotics, Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM), and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) from Gibco, Canada. The oral cancer cell line was provided by the National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune, India, and was cultured according to established guidelines. In brief, the oral cancer cells were cultured in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS at 37°C in a 5% CO2 environment. Data analysis was conducted using CFX Manager Version 2.1, employing the comparative CT approach, and fold changes were determined using the 2 delta CT method as outlined by Schmittgen and Livak (2008) (Bio Rad, USA). Results: Our results demonstrate that exposure to various concentrations (25μM, 50μM, and 100μM) of Piperine significantly reduced the viability of oral cancer cells (p<0.05). Piperine induced a dose-dependent increase in ROS production and nuclear condensation, both of which were statistically significant (p<0.05). Furthermore, Piperine down-regulated Bcl2 expression while upregulating Bax and p53 expression in a concentration-dependent manner, thereby promoting cell death through the loss of metalloprotease activity and activation of caspase-3. Conclusion: Based on the outcomes of this study, the Piperine extract exhibited a profound ability to suppress cancer activity by promoting apoptosis. These findings underscore the potential of Piperine extract as a formidable anti-cancer agent against human oral cancer cells, positioning it as a promising contender for the development of anticancer pharmaceuticals and treatments for oral cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPiperaceae Chemical and Biological StudiesFrench-language works237,207