Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Chemical Compositions and Antimutagenic Effects of Ethanolic Extracts of Stachys Thirkei and Stachys Annua subsp. Annua Using the Ames Assay

  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Chemistry Journal Aims and scope

In this study, antimutagenic effects of ethanolic extracts of Stachys thirkei and Stachys annua subsp. annua belonging to Lamiaceae family that grow in Duzce of Turkey were investigated on Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100 strains without metabolic activation using Salmonella/microsome test system. Three different concentrations (0.025, 0.05 and 0.1 mg/plate) of the ethanolic extracts of S. thirkei and S. annua subsp. were used as active materials in which the major components were 2-ethylhexanol (30.012%) and 2-beta-pinene (26.40%), respectively. The highest concentration (0.1 mg/plate) of S. thirkei had a moderate antimutagenic effect on the Salmonella typhimurium TA98 strain with a 26.79% inhibition rate. It was also established that the extract of S. thirkei at highest concentration (0.1 mg/plate) exhibited strong antimutagenic effect (with 44.03% maximum inhibition) on TA100 strain. Furthermore, it was found that 0.05 mg/plate ethanolic extract showed moderate antimutagenic activity with 25.55% inhibition rate. The highest concentration (0.1 mg/plate) of ethanolic extract of S. annua subsp. showed moderate antimutagenic activity on both Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100 strains with inhibition rates of 20.39 and 22.13%, respectively. No antimutagenic activity on Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100 strains was observed at the lowest doses of both plant species. As a result, it is concluded that S. thirkei and annua subsp. have antimutagenic activity and further studies may be recommended in terms of different parameters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. M. Pezzuto, Biochem. Pharm., 2, 121 – 133 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. G. Topcu and A. Ulubelen, J. Mol. Struct., 834 – 836, 57 – 73 (2007).

  3. K. Deepti, K. R. Amperayani, N. S. Yarla, et al., Pharm. Chem. J., 51(4), (2017).

  4. M. Nakipoglu and H. Otan, Anadolu J. AARI, 4(1), 70 – 93,(1992).

    Google Scholar 

  5. E. K. Dagcý, M. Izmirli, and M. Digrak, KSÜ Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, 5(1), 38-46 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. H. Davis (Ed.), Flora of Turkey and the East Aegaen Islands, Vol. 7, Edinburg University Press (1982).

  7. T. Baytop, Farmasotik Botanik Ders Kitabý, Ýstanbul Üniversitesi Eczacýlýk Fakültesi, No: 3687 (1991)

  8. Leblebici Sema, Doctoral Thesis, Turkey (2011).

  9. L. Watson and M. T. Dallwitz, The Families of Flowering Plants, Oxford University Press, London. (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  10. T. Baytop. Türkiye’de Bitkiler ile Tedavi, Ýstanbul Üniversitesi Yayýnlarý, Turkiye, (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. Renda, N.Y. Bekta, B. Korkmaz, et al., Marmara Pharm. J., 21(2), 278 – 285 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. L. A. Mitscher, S. Drake, S. R. Gollapuri, et al. (Eds.), Antimutagenesis and Anticarcinogenesis Mechanisms, Plenum Press, New York (1986).

  13. J. H. Weisburger, Mutat. Res., 480 – 481, 23 – 35 (2001).

  14. S. Bhattacharya, Res. J. Med. Plants 5(2), 116 – 126 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. V. Karaker, S. Joshi, and S. L. Shinde, Mut. Res., 468, 183 – 194 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. S. Sato and I Tomita, J. Health Sci., 47(1), 1 – 8 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. F. I. Abdulaev, L. Riveron-Negrete, H. Caballero-Orgeta, et al., Toxicology In Vitro, 17, 731 – 736 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. M. Taherkhani, Pharm. Chem. J., 48, 11 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. KEW Science, Royal Botanics Garden, Plants of the World Online. http: // powo.science.kew.org / taxon / urn:lsid:ipni.org:names: 77171996-1 (Date of access: 06 May 2020).

  20. I. Uysal, J. Environ.Biol., 31, 141 – 147 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. C. Unsal, H. Vural, and G. Sariyar, Turk. J. Pharm. Sci., 7(2), 139 – 150 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Z. C. Arituluk and N. Ezer, Hacettepe Univ. J. Fac. Pharm., 32, 179 – 208 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  23. E. Altundag and M. Ozturk, 2nd Intern. Geo. Sym.-Mediter. Environ., 19, 756 – 777 (2011).

  24. D. Tunali Erkan, and B. Dulger, Duzce Univ. J. Sci. Technol., 4, 886 – 893 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  25. T. Askun, E. M. Tekwu, F. Satil, et al., BMC Complem. Altern. Med., 13, 365 – 375 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. A. C. Goren, F. Piozzi, E. Akcicek, et al., Phytochem. Lett., 4, 448 – 453 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. A. Venditti, A. Bianco, and L. Quassinti, Chem. Biodiv., 12, 1172 – 1183 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. M. Digrak, M. H. Alma, and A. Ilcim, Pharm. Biol., 39(5), 346 – 350 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. M. Alpay, G. Dülger, and E. Karabacak, Indian J. Med. Res. Pharm. Sci., 4(12), 68-74. (2017).

  30. S. Karakaya and A. Kavas, J. Sci. Food Agric., 79, 237 – 242 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. B. J. Dean, T. M. Brooks, G. Hodsonwalker, et al., Mutat. Res., 153, 57 – 77 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. EBPI, http: // www.ebpi.ca/Muta-ChromoPlate%20Power% 20Point%20Presentation%20-%20Extended.pdf (Eri°i tarihi: 29 April 2020).

  33. D. M. Maron and B. N. Ames, Mutat. Res., 113, 173 – 215 (1983).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. P. S. Negi, G. K. Jayaprakasha, B. S. Jena, Food Chem., 80, 393 – 397 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. A. A. Basaran, T. W. Yu, M. J. Plewa, et al., Teratogen. Carcinogen. Mutagen., 16, 125 – 138 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. I. Gurbuz, E. Yesilada, and B. Demirci, J. Ethnopharmacol., 148, 332 – 336 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. G. E. Barboza, J. J. Cantero, C. Núñez, et al., Tomo, 34(1–2), 7 – 365 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  38. M. Sharmila, M. Rajeswari, I. Jayashree, et al., Intern. J. App. Adv. Sci. Res., 1(1), 2456 – 3080 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  39. C. C. Santos, M. S. Salvadori, V. G. Mota, et. al., Neurosci. J., 1 – 9 (2013).

  40. R. O. Silva, F. B. Sousa, S. R. Damasceno, et al. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol., 28(4), 455 – 464 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. K. R. Mari and S. Muthukrishnan., J. Pharmacog. Phytochem., 7(2), 681 – 693 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Kocak Mehmet Sefa, M.S Doctoral Thesis, Turkey (2015).

  43. Cigdem Harun, Master’s Thesis, Turkey (2013).

  44. B. Salehi, S. Upadhyay, I. E. Orhan, et al., Biomolecules, 9, 738, 1 – 34 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  45. T. Y. Shin, Immunopharm. Immunotoxicol., 26(4), 621 – 630 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. A. Delazar, S. Celik, R. S. Gokturk, et al., Pharmazie, 60(11), 878 – 880 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. J. Kukic, S. Petroviæ, and M. Niketic, Biol. Pharm. Bull., 29(4), 725 – 729 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Z. Amirghofran, M. Bahmani, A. Azadmehr, et al., Neoplasma, 53, 428 – 433 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Z. Amirghofran, M. Bahmani, A. Azadmehr, et al., Med. Sci. Monit., 13(6), 145 – 150 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  50. E. Háznagy-Radnai, B. Réthy, S. Z. Czigle, et al., Fitoterapia, 79(7–8), 595 – 597(2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. P. C. H. Hollman, M. G. L. Hertog, and M. B. Katan, Food. Chem., 57, 43 – 46 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. J. A. Milner, Nutr. 131(3), 1027 – 1031 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Y. Shukla and P. Taneja, Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol., 21(3), 259 – 265 (2002).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. D. Madhavi, K. R. Devil, K. K. Rao, et al., Environ. Biol., 28(1), 115 – 117 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Duzce University Scientific Research Fund (Project Number, 2019.11.01.908).

The authors are grateful to Scientific and Technological Research Application and Research Center of Duzce University for GC-MS analysis, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Haydar GOKSU and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nedim ALTIN for chemicals; and Ilker Kiliccioglu and Bahar Gedik for their scientific assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Sciences, Duzce University, 81620, Duzce, Turkey

    Pinar Goc Rasgele

  2. Department of Medical Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Duzce University, 81620, Duzce, Turkey

    Gorkem Dulger

Authors
  1. Pinar Goc Rasgele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gorkem Dulger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pinar Goc Rasgele.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rasgele, P.G., Dulger, G. Chemical Compositions and Antimutagenic Effects of Ethanolic Extracts of Stachys Thirkei and Stachys Annua subsp. Annua Using the Ames Assay. Pharm Chem J 54, 1255–1262 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11094-021-02351-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11094-021-02351-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation