Research Article

Phytochemical Analysis, In Vitro Free Radical Scavenging, and LDL Protective Effects of Different Solvent Fractions of Calotropis procera (R.) Br. Root Bark Extract

Table 2

IC50 values of CMRME and its solvent fractions on different in vitro radical systems tested.

Extract/fractionsDPPH scavengingNO radical scavengingH2O2 scavengingOH radical scavengingO2 anion scavengingFe³⁺ ion chelatingLDL oxidation inhibitory
IC50 (μg/ml)

CPRME619.77 ± 13.78b#355.80 ± 14.30b#594.06 ± 11.12b#635.09 ± 11.21b#1029.83 ± 20.92b#943.42 ± 9.44b#1316.01 ± 13.14b#
HF2298.29 ± 63.72n2015.64 ± 43.50n2245.78 ± 64.67n4843.65 ± 141.65n2202.07 ± 55.91n1374.39 ± 20.62n971.54 ± 9.49a#
DMF482.53 ± 12.16a,b#249.87 ± 7.52a,b#532.47 ± 9.32ns,b#564.81 ± 10.84ns,b#657.85 ± 12.14a,b#804.77 ± 7.91a#,b#795.31 ± 10.21a#,b
EAF369.87 ± 7.58a,b#132.31 ± 5.78a#,b#396.85 ± 6.13a,b#195.39 ± 4.95a,b#741.90 ± 12.5a#,b#627.01 ± 8.99a#,b#452.57 ± 8.61a#,b#
MF794.35 ± 13.43n,b#542.41 ± 8.32n,b#665.14 ± 8.39n,b#1196.09 ± 13.91n,b#1716.60 ± 54.34n,b#614.73 ± 10.87a#,b#1743.17 ± 22.27n,b#
AF1568.93 ± 38.14n,b#1096.96 ± 14.95n,b#887.41 ± 9.07n,b#1993.07 ± 35.20n,b#1889.88 ± 47.40n,b1228.80 ± 13.07n,b#2930.62 ± 62.47n,b#
Ascorbic acid (ASA)30.42 ± 2.12a#,b#53.81 ± 3.51a#,b#45.38 ± 2.39a#,b#57.23 ± 3.68a#,b#91.53 ± 4.71a#,b#150.03 ± 3.41a#,b#NA

IC50 values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 3). IC50 of CPRME (crude extract) is compared with that of different solvent fractions. a, a, a, a# when compared with CPRME and b, b, b# when compared with HF (hexane fraction). ns: not significant. n: indicates a higher IC50 than CPRME and therefore, lower radical scavenging activity. NA: no standard was used. The results of LDL oxidation assay of crude extract and solvent fractions were compared with positive control (native LDL with CuSO4 only) CPRME: Calotropis procera root bark methanol extract; HF: hexane fraction; DMF: dichloromethane fraction; EAF: ethyl acetate fraction; MF: methanol fraction; AF: aqueous fraction.