| Title |
In vitro studies on protective effect of Glycyrrhiza glabra root extracts against cadmium-induced genetic and oxidative damage in human lymphocytes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Methods in Cell Science, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10616-012-9531-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ebubekir Dirican, Hasan Turkez |
| Abstract |
Cadmium is a modern environmental contaminant that is toxic and carcinogenic. Glycyrrhiza glabra is a traditional medicinal herb which grows in the various parts of the World. Recent studies demonstrated that G. glabra has antifungal, antimicrobial, antioxidant, and powerful antiinflammatory features. The purpose of this study was to investigate the genetic safety of extracts from G. glabra and its effects on cadmium (as CdCl2) induced genotoxicity. Therefore we evaluated the capability of G. glabra extract to inhibit the rate of micronucleus (MN), sister chromatid exchange (SCE) formations induced by CdCl2. Moreover, to assess the effects of G. glabra on cell viability and oxidative status, we performed 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) assays. Our results showed that there were significant increases (P < 0.05) in both SCE and MN frequencies of cultures treated with CdCl2 (5 ppm) as compared to controls. However, co-application of G. glabra extract (5, 10 and 20 ppm) and CdCl2 resulted in decreases of MN and SCE rates as compared to the group treated with CdCl2 alone. Again, the results of MTT and TAC assays clearly indicated dose dependent ameliorative effects of G. glabra extracts against CdCl2 toxicity. In conclusion, this study demonstrated for the first time that G. glabra extracts provided increased resistance of DNA against CdCl2 induced genetic and oxidative damage in human lymphocytes. So, the risk on target tissues of CdCl2 could be reduced and ensured early recovery from its toxicity. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 3 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 25 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 28% |
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 38% |
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 17 March 2015.
All research outputs
#17,450,897
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Methods in Cell Science
#788
of 1,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,744
of 293,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in Cell Science
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,030 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 293,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.