Mangifera indica L.: Assessing the cytogenotoxicity of aqueous extract through micronucleus and comet assays

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X64086

Keywords:

Medicinal plant, Genotoxicity, Cytotoxicity, Phytochemical, Infusion

Abstract

Mangifera indica L., known as mango tree, is a species belonging to family Anacardiaceae, widely used in popular medicine whose leaves are used to treat several diseases. Although several studies did not detect the cytogenotoxic activity of M. indica leaf extract, other authors have observed these feature and highlighted the importance of further research about the toxic potential of M. indica leaf extract. The aim of the current research is to assess the cytogenotoxic potential of the aqueous extract of M. indica leaves through comet DNA assay and micronucleus test. It was possible observing significant increase in the number of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes (MNPCE) in mice subjected to the treatment with the extract, in addition to significant increase in DNA damage index in comparison to the negative control group. The extract also presented cytotoxic effect caused by significant reduction in the polychromatic:normochromatic erythrocyte (PCE/NCE) ratio in comparison to the negative control group. The extract of M. indica leaves is cytogenotoxic under the conditions used in the current research; this outcome highlighted the importance of comparative studies applied to the several used processing methods, as well as to cultivation conditions, to certify the safety in the popular use of medicinal plants.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Ellen Borges Rocha, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ

Estudante de graduação em Farmácia pela Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro.

Jônatas Sennas Souza, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ

Graduando em Farmácia pela Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ). É aluno de iniciação científica do Laboratório de Imunofarmacologia da Fiocruz. Foi aluno PIBIC do Laboratório de Psicofarmacologia e Comportamento da UFRRJ.

Mayara Christine Silva, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ

Farmacêutica pela Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ). Foi estagiária do Laboratório de Atividade Genotóxica de Plantas (LAGEP), na UFRRJ.

Danilo Giovanni Narciso Pastura, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ

Mestrando no programa de pós-graduação em Biologia Animal pela Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ). Bacharel em ciências biológicas pela Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ).

Raphael Santiago Alves, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ

Possui graduação em Gestão de Turismo pelo Instituto Federal de São Paulo. Acadêmico de Farmácia pela Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro.

Hataânderson Luiz Cabral Santos, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ

MBA em Gestão da Qualidade pela Universidade Cândido Mendes. Graduado em Ciências Biológicas pela Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro e técnico em biotecnologia pelo Instituto Oswaldo Cruz.

Helcio Resende Borba, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ

Possui graduação em Biologia pela Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro e em Farmácia pela UNISUAM, mestrado em Ciências (Bioquímica) pela Universidade Federal do Paraná e doutorado em Ciências Veterinárias pela Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. Professor Titular do Departamento de Biologia Animal da Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. 

Viviane Moreira Lima, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ

Graduação em Ciências Biológicas pela Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, mestrado em Ciências Biológicas (Genética) pela Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro e doutorado em Ciências Biológicas (Genética) pela Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Professora associado II da Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro.

References

ALBERTINI RJ, ANDERSON D, DOUGLAS GR, HAGMAR L, HEMMINKI K, MERLO F, et al. IPCS guidelines for the monitoring of genotoxic effects of carcinogens in humans. Mutat. Res. 2000;463(2):111–172.

ALMEIDA PM, ARAÚJO SS, SANTOS IRMR, MARIN-MORALES MA, BENKO-ISEPPON AM, SANTOS AV, et al. Genotoxic potential of leaf extracts of Jatropha gossypiifolia L. Genet. Mol. Res. 2016;15(1):1–8.

ANDRADE CUB, PERAZZO FF, MAISTRO EL. Mutagenicity of the Musa paradisiaca (Musaceae) fruit peel extract in mouse peripheral blood cells in vivo. Genet. Mol. Res. 2008;7(3):725–732.

AYRES M, AYRES JR, AYRES DL, SANTOS AAS. BioEstat 5.0: Aplicações Estatísticas nas Áreas das Ciências Biológicas e Médicas. 5ed. Belém: Sociedade Civil Mamirauá. 2007.

BATOOL N, ILYAS N, SHABIR S, SAEED M, MAZHAR R, AMJID MW. A mini-review of therapeutic potential of Mangifera indica L. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 2018;31(4):1441–1448.

BERNO CR, RÓS BT, SILVEIRA IOMF, COELHO HR, ANTONIOLLI ACMB, BEATRIZ A, et al. 4-Aminoantipyrine reduces toxic and genotoxic effects of doxorubicin, cisplatin, and cyclophosphamide in male mice. Mutat. Res. 2016;(805):19–24.

BONTEMPO NJS, ORSOLIN PC. Avaliação do efeito anticarcinogênico do extrato de folhas de manga (Mangifera indica L .) por meio do teste para detecção de clones de tumores epiteliais em Drosophila melanogaster. Perquirere. 2016;13(1):238–254.

BUYUKLEYLA M, AZIRAK S, RENCUZOGULLARI E, KOCAMAN AY, ILA HB, TOPAKTAS M, et al. The genotoxic and antigenotoxic effects of tannic acid in human lymphocytes. Drug Chem.Toxicol. 2012;35(1):11–19.

CAI L-Y, SHI F-X, GAO X. Preliminary phytochemical analysis of Acanthopanan trifoliatus (L.) Merr. J. Med. Plant. Res. 2011;5(17):4059–4064.

CHIRAYATH RB, VISWANATHAN AA, JAYAKUMAR R, BISWAS R, VIJAYACHANDRAN LS. Development of Mangifera indica leaf extract incorporated carbopol hydrogel and its antibacterial efficacy against Staphylococcus aureus. Colloid Surface B. 2019;(178):377–384.

COLLINS AR, OSCOZ AA, BRUNBORG G, GAIVÃO I, GIOVANNELLI MK, KRUZEWSKI M, et al. The comet assay: Topical issues. Mutagenesis. 2008;23(3):143–151.

GARCÍA O, MANDINA T, LAMADRID AI, DIAZ A, REMIGIO A, GONZALEZ Y, et al. Sensitivity and variability of visual scoring in the comet assay: Results of an inter-laboratory scoring exercise with the use of silver staining. Mutat. Res. 2004;556(1–2):25–34.

HOSSAIN MA, AL-RAQMI KAS, AL-MIJIZY ZH, WELI AM, AL-RIYAMI Q. Study of total phenol, flavonoids contents and phytochemical screening of various leaves crude extracts of locally grown Thymus vulgaris. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2013;3(9):705–710.

KUMAR S. Alkaloidal Drugs - A Review. AJPST. 2014;4(3):107–119.

LABIENIEC M, GABRYELAK T. Effects of tannins on Chinese hamster cell line B14. Mutat. Res. 2003;539(1–2):127–135.

LAU BF, ABDULLAH N, AMINUDIN N, LEE HB, et al. Chemical composition and cellular toxicity of ethnobotanical-based hot and cold aqueous preparations of the tiger’s milk mushroom (Lignosus rhinocerotis). J. Ethnopharmacol. 2013;150(1):252–262.

LIMA VM, GOMES JV, MATOS AL, PEREIRA GL, LARANJEIRA MJC, BORBA HR. Mangifera indica L.: Evaluation of the cytotoxic and genotoxic potential of the aqueous extract by the Allium cepa test. World J. Pharm. Res. 2016;5(5):352–361.

LIU W, GIORGIO CD, LAMIDI M, ELIAS R, OLLIVIER E, MÉO MPD. Genotoxic and clastogenic activity of saponins extracted from Nauclea bark as assessed by the micronucleus and the comet assays in Chinese Hamster Ovary cells. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2011;137(1):176–183.

MOREIRA SA, ALEXANDRE EMC, PINTADO M, SARAIVA JA. Effect of emergent non-thermal extraction technologies on bioactive individual compounds profile from different plant materials. Food Res. Int. 2019;(115):177–190.

MORSY N. Phytochemical analysis of biologically active constituents of medicinal plants. Main Group Chem.. 2014;13(1):7–21.

OECD -Test No. 489: In Vivo Mammalian Alkaline Comet Assay, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, OECD Publishing, Paris. 2016 Available from: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264264885-en.

PAVARINI DP, PAVARINI SP, NIEHUES M, LOPES NP. Exogenous influences on plant secondary metabolite levels. Anim. Feed Sci.Tech. 2012;176(1–4):5–16.

REDDEMAN RA, GLÁVITS R, ENDRES J, CLEWELL AE, HIRKA G, VÉRTESI A, et al. A toxicological evaluation of mango leaf extract (Mangifera indica) containing 60% mangiferin. J.Toxicol. 2019;(2):1-14.

SAKLANI S, MISHRA AP, SATI B, SATI H. Pharmacognostic, phytochemical and antimicrobial screening of Aphanamixis polystachya, an endangered medicinal tree. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2012;4(3):235–240.

SCHNEIDER BUC, MEZA A, BEATRIZ A, PESARINI JR, CARVALHO PC, MAURO MO, et al. Cardanol: Toxicogenetic assessment and its effects when combined with cyclophosphamide. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2016;39(2):279–289.

SEVERI JA, LIMA ZP, KUSHIMA H, BRITO ARMS, SANTOS LC, VILEGAS W, et al. Polyphenols with antiulcerogenic action from aqueous decoction of mango leaves (Mangifera indica L.). Molecules. 2009;14(3):1098–1110.

SILVA MC, MATOS AL, SANTOS HLC, GOMES JV, PASTURA DG, PEREIRA GL, et al. Laurus nobilis L.: Assessment of the cytotoxic and genotoxic potential of aqueous extracts by micronucleus and Allium cepa assays. Braz. J. Pharm. Sci. 2020;(56):1–9.

VILLAS BOAS GR, LEMOS JMR, OLIVEIRA MW, SANTOS RC, SILVEIRA APS, BACHA FB, et al. Preclinical safety evaluation of the aqueous extract from Mangifera indica Linn. (Anacardiaceae): genotoxic, clastogenic and cytotoxic assessment in experimental models of genotoxicity in rats to predict potential human risks. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2019;(243):1-12.

YAKUBU MT, SALIMON SS. Antidiarrhoeal activity of aqueous extract of Mangifera indica L. leaves in female albino rats. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2015;(163):135–141.

Downloads

Published

2021-09-09 — Updated on 2022-04-06

Versions

How to Cite

Rocha, E. B., Souza, J. S., Silva, M. C., Pastura, D. G. N., Alves, R. S., Santos, H. L. C., Borba, H. R., & Lima, V. M. (2022). Mangifera indica L.: Assessing the cytogenotoxicity of aqueous extract through micronucleus and comet assays. Ciência E Natura, 43, e88 . https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X64086 (Original work published September 9, 2021)

Issue

Vol. 43 (2021): Continuous Publication

Section

Biology-Genetics

License

Copyright (c) 2021 Ciência e Natura

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. 

Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

In particular, 

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Most read articles by the same author(s)