Bioactivity-Directed Isolation of Anticancer Constituents from Underexplored Folklore: Rhus punjabensis Stewart
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Material
2.2. Extraction
2.3. Isolation of Bioactive Compounds
2.4. Biological Evaluation
2.4.1. Antioxidant Activity
DPPH Assay (FRSA)
Determination of Total Antioxidant Capacity (TAC)
Total Reducing Power Assay (TRP)
2.5. Microbial Inhibition Assay
2.6. Cytotoxicity Assessment
2.6.1. Brine Shrimp Lethality Assay and Antileishmanial Assay
2.6.2. Protein Kinase Inhibition Assay
2.6.3. In Vitro Cytotoxic Activity
Sulfo-Rhodamine B Colorimetric Assay
2.6.4. Chemo-Preventive Assessment
NF-κB Assay
NF-κB Evaluation
3. Results
3.1. Biological Evaluation of Fractions Isolated via Solid Phase Extraction
3.2. Biological Evaluation
Percent Free Radical Scavenging Activity, Total Reducing Power Assay, and the Antioxidant Capacity
3.3. Microbial Inhibition Analysis
3.3.1. Antimicrobial and Antifungicidal Properties
3.3.2. Brine Shrimp Lethality, Antileishmanial Activity, and Assay for Protein Kinase Inhibition Using Fractions Derived from R. punjabensis
3.3.3. In Vitro Cytotoxicity Across Selected Cell Lines
Sulfo-Rhodamine B(SRB) Assay
NF-κB and MTP-Based Chemo-Prevention Assay
3.4. Characterization of Compounds
3.4.1. Clarifying the Structure of Penta Cyclic Triterpenoid (PEEA-C2)
3.4.2. Detailed Structure Determination of PEEA-C3 (Cycloartenol)
3.4.3. Structure Elucidation of RPEA-C5 (β-Sitosterol)
3.5. Antioxidant Activities
Total Antioxidant Activity, Total Reducing Power Potential, and Percent Free Radical Scavenging Activity
3.6. Antimicrobial Assessment
3.6.1. Antibacterial and Antifungal Activity
3.6.2. Antileishmanial Activity, Protein Kinase Inhibition Assay, and Brine Shrimp Lethality
3.7. Cytotoxic Activities Against Different Cancer Cell Lines (Sulforhodamine B Assay)
Cancer Chemo Preventative Assessments by Using NF-κB and MTP Assays
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Health Organization. WHO Health Workforce Support and Safeguards List 2023; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Ashraf, M.A. Phytochemicals as potential anticancer drugs: Time to ponder nature’s bounty. Biomed. Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 8602879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rayne, S.; Mazza, G. Biological activities of extracts from sumac (Rhus spp.): A review. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2007, 62, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabassum, S.; Ahmed, M.; Mirza, B.; Naeem, M.; Zia, M.; Shanwari, Z.K.; Khan, G.M. Appraisal of phytochemical and in vitro biological attributes of an unexplored folklore: Rhus punjabensis Stewart. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 17, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opiyo, S.A.; Njoroge, P.W.; Ndirangu, E.G.; Kuria, K.M. A review of biological activities and phytochemistry of Rhus species. Phytochem. Rev. 2021, 20, 793–815. [Google Scholar]
- Kossah, R.; Nsabimana, C.; Zhang, H.; Chen, W. Optimization of Extraction of Polyphenols from Syrian Sumac (Rhus coriaria L.) and Chinese Sumac (Rhus typhina L.) Fruits. Res. J. Phytochem. 2010, 4, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naz, S.; Tabassum, S.; Fernandes, N.F.; Mujahid, M.; Zia, M.; de Blanco, E.J.C. Anticancer and antibacterial potential of Rhus punjabensis and CuO nanoparticles. Nat. Prod. Res. 2020, 34, 720–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shabbir, A. Rhus coriaria Linn, a plant of medicinal, nutritional, and industrial importance: A review. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2012, 22, 505–512. [Google Scholar]
- Rajesh, E.; Sankari, L.S.; Malathi, L.; Krupaa, J.R. Naturally occurring products in cancer therapy. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2015, 7 (Suppl. 1), S181–S186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-González, M.Z.; Nieto-Trujillo, A.; Gutiérrez-Rebolledo, G.A.; García-Martínez, I.; Estrada-Zúñiga, M.E.; Bernabé-Antonio, A.; Cruz-Sosa, F. Lupeol acetate production and antioxidant activity of a cell suspension culture from Cnidoscolus chayamansa leaves. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 125, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, K.; Zhang, X.; Xie, L.; Deng, M.; Chen, H.; Song, J.; Luo, J. Lupeol and its derivatives as anticancer and anti-inflammatory agents: Molecular mechanisms and therapeutic efficacy. Pharmacol. Res. 2021, 164, 105373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, J.; Riaz, N.; Mannan, A.; Tabassum, S.; Zia, M. Antioxidant, antimicrobial, enzyme inhibition, and cytotoxicity-based fractionation and isolation of active components from Monotheca buxifolia (Falc.) A. DC. stem extracts. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 31640–31651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatima, H.; Khan, K.; Zia, M.; Ur-Rehman, T.; Mirza, B.; Haq, I.U. Extraction optimization of medicinally important metabo-lites from Datura innoxia Mill.: An in vitro biological and phytochemical investigation. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2015, 15, 376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jafri, L.; Saleem, S.; Ullah, N.; Mirza, B. In vitro assessment of antioxidant potential and determination of polyphenolic compounds of Hedera nepalensis K. Koch. Arab. J. Chem. 2017, 10, S3699–S3706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahra, S.S.; Ahmed, M.; Qasim, M.; Gul, B.; Zia, M.; Mirza, B.; Haq, I.U. Polarity-based characterization of biologically active extracts of Ajuga bracteosa Wall. ex Benth. and RP-HPLC analysis. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 17, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahmed, M.; Fatima, H.; Qasim, M.; Gul, B. Polarity-directed optimization of phytochemical and in vitro biological potential of an indigenous folklore: Quercus dilatata Lindl. ex Royle. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 17, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, M.; Phul, A.R.; Bibi, G.; Mazhar, K.; Ur-Rehman, T.; Zia, M.; Mirza, B. Antioxidant, anticancer, and antibacterial po-tential of Zakhm-e-hayat rhizomes crude extract and fractions. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 29, 895–902. [Google Scholar]
- Karkache, I.Y.; Damodaran, J.R.; Molstad, D.H.; Bradley, E.W. Serine/threonine phosphatases in osteoclastogenesis and bone resorption. Gene 2021, 771, 145362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullahi, S.M.; Musa, A.M.; Abdullahi, M.I.; Sule, M.I.; Sani, Y.M. Isolation of Lupeol from the Stem-bark of Lonchocarpus sericeus (Papilionaceae). Scholars Acad. J. Biosci. 2013, 1, 18–19. [Google Scholar]
- Tin, H.S.; Padam, B.S.; Kamada, T.; Vairappan, C.S.; Abdullah, M.I.; Chye, F.Y. Isolation and structure elucidation of triterpenes from inflorescence of banana (Musa balbisiana cv. Saba). Int. Food Res. J. 2016, 23, 866. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, H.; Wang, C.; Zhou, H.; Tao, R.; Ye, J.; Li, W. Antioxidant capacity and identification of the constituents of ethyl acetate fraction from Rhus verniciflua Stokes by HPLC-MS. Nat. Prod. Res. 2017, 31, 1573–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, S.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, X. Comparative studies on extracts from Hericium erinaceus by different polarity reagents to gain higher antioxidant activities. Exp. Ther. Med. 2016, 12, 513–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loizzo, M.R.; Pugliese, A.; Bonesi, M.; Tenuta, M.C.; Menichini, F.; Xiao, J.; Tundis, R. Edible flowers: A rich source of phy-tochemicals with antioxidant and hypoglycemic properties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 2467–2474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Złotek, U.; Mikulska, S.; Nagajek, M.; Świeca, M. The effect of different solvents and extraction steps on polyphenol content and antioxidant capacity of basil leaves (Ocimum basilicum L.) extracts. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2016, 23, 628–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, D.; Triebel, S.; Rudakovski, O.; Richling, E. Influence of triterpenoids present in apple peel on inflammatory gene expression associated with inflammatory bowel disease. Food Chem. 2013, 139, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, Z.; Liao, R.; Qiu, Q.; Wang, Y.; Luo, C. Reduction-responsive stearyl alcohol-cabazitaxel prodrug nanoassemblies for cancer chemotherapy. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhatti, M.Z.; Ali, A.; Saeed, A.; Saeed, A.; Malik, S.A. Antimicrobial, antitumor, and brine shrimp lethality assay of Ranunculus arvensis L. extracts. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 2015, 28, 945–949. [Google Scholar]
- Rahman, N.; Ahmad, M.; Riaz, M.; Mehjabeen; Ahmad, R. Phytochemical, antimicrobial, insecticidal, and brine shrimp lethality bioassay of the crude methanolic extract of Ajuga parviflora Benth. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 2013, 26, 751–756. [Google Scholar]
- Roskoski, R., Jr. A historical overview of protein kinases and their targeted small-molecule inhibitors. Pharmacol. Res. 2015, 100, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, L.; Zhang, M.; Zhao, R.; Wang, D.; Ma, Y.; Ai, L. Plant natural products: Promising resources for cancer chemoprevention. Molecules 2021, 26, 933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shanbhag, P.; Bhave, S.; Vartak, A.; Kulkarni-Almeida, A.; Mahajan, G.; Villanueva, I.; Davies, J. Screening of microbial ex-tracts for anticancer compounds using Streptomyces kinase inhibitor assay. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2015, 10, 1934578X1501000738. [Google Scholar]
- Djakpo, O.; Yao, W. Rhus chinensis and Galla chinensis—Folklore to modern evidence. Phytother. Res. 2010, 24, 1739–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, N.; Choi, J.H.; Yang, H.; Jeong, E.J.; Lee, K.Y.; Kim, Y.C.; Sung, S.H. Neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects of flavonoids isolated from Rhus verniciflua in neuronal HT22 and microglial BV2 cell lines. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2012, 50, 1940–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Simone, V.; Franze, E.; Ronchetti, G.; Colantoni, A.; Fantini, M.C.; Di Fusco, D.; Stolfi, C. Th17-type cytokines IL-6 and TNF-α synergistically activate STAT3 and NF-κB to promote colorectal cancer cell growth. Oncogene 2015, 34, 3493–3503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.E.; Son, J.E.; Jung, S.K.; Kang, N.J.; Lee, C.Y.; Lee, K.W.; Lee, H.J. Cocoa polyphenols suppress TNF-α-induced vascular endothelial growth factor expression by inhibiting PI3K and MEK1 activities in mouse epidermal cells. Br. J. Nutr. 2010, 104, 957–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nambiar, D.; Rajamani, P.; Singh, R.P. Effects of phytochemicals on ionizing radiation-mediated carcinogenesis and cancer therapy. Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res. 2011, 728, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivas, M.A. Degree of hydrolysis of gallotannins from sumac (Rhus coriaria) on their anti-inflammatory potency in vitro. Food Chem. 2019, 286, 128–134. [Google Scholar]
- El Hasasna, H.; Athamneh, K.; Al Samri, H.; Karuvantevida, N.; Al Dhaheri, Y.; Hisaindee, S.; Iratni, R. Rhus coriaria induces senescence and autophagic cell death in breast cancer cells through a mechanism involving p38 and ERK1/2 activation. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 13013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dini, I.; Laneri, S. Spices, condiments, extra virgin olive oil, and aromas as not only flavorings but precious allies for our wellbeing. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, A.; Wang, Y.; Xiang, L.; Zhang, Z.; He, X. Novel triterpenoids isolated from hawthorn berries function as antioxidants and exhibit antiproliferative activities. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 13, 308–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghosh, S. Triterpenoids: Structural diversity, biosynthetic pathway, and bioactivity. Stud. Nat. Prod. Chem. 2020, 67, 411–461. [Google Scholar]
- Shanmugam, M.K.; Nguyen, A.H.; Kumar, A.P.; Tan, B.K.; Sethi, G. Targeted inhibition of tumor proliferation, survival, and metastasis by pentacyclic triterpenoids: Potential role in prevention and therapy of cancer. Cancer Lett. 2012, 320, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wal, A.; Srivastava, R.S.; Wal, P.; Rai, A.; Sharma, S. Lupeol is a magical drug. Pharm. Biol. Eval. 2015, 2, 142–151. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, P.; Arora, D.; Shukla, Y. Enhanced chemoprevention by combined treatment of pterostilbene and lupeol in B[a]P-induced mouse skin tumorigenesis. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2017, 99, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]





| Samples | P. aeruginosa | MIC | S. typhimurium | MIC | M. luteus | MIC | B. bronchiseptica | MIC | S. aureus | MIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZOI (mm) | µg/mL | ZOI (mm) | µg/mL | ZOI (mm) | µg/mL | ZOI (mm) | µg/mL | ZOI (mm) | µg/mL | |
| n-hex (f) | 7 ± 0.7 | -- | 7.5 ± 0.5 | -- | 7.5 ± 0.5 | -- | 7 ± 0.7 | -- | 7.7 ± 0.7 | -- |
| n-hex + CHCl3 (f) | 11.0 ± 0.8 * | -- | 10.5 ± 0.7 * | 33.3 | 12.5 ± 0.5 * | 33.3 | 10.5 ± 0.7 | -- | 7.7 ± 0.7 | -- |
| CHCl3 (f) | 8.5 ± 0.7 | -- | 9 ± 0.5 | -- | 7.5 ± 0.5 | -- | 7.5 ± 0.8 | -- | 7.5 ± 0.8 | -- |
| EtOAc + n-hex (f) | 12 ± 0.6 | 33.3 | 15.6 ± 0.5 ** | 33.3 | 11 ± 0.7 * | 33.3 | 10 ± 0.7 * | 33.3 | 7.5 ± 0.7 | -- |
| EtOAc (f) | 17.5 ± 1.5 ** | 11.1 | 24 ± 1.5 *** | 1.11 | 20 ± 1.5 *** | 11.3 | 14.5 ± 1.5 ** | 11.3 | 14.6 ± 1.4 ** | 33.3 |
| MeOH (f) | 10.5 ± 0.7 * | -- | 1 1 ± 0.5 * | 33.3 | 6.5 ± 0.7 | -- | 7.5 ± 0.5 | -- | 6 ± 0.4 | -- |
| Roxithromycin | 22.5 ± 2.5 *** | 0.1 | 25 ± 2.3 *** | 0.1 | 22.5 ± 2.8 *** | 0.1 | 18 ± 2.8 *** | 0.1 | 20 ± 2.2 *** | 0.1 |
| DMSO | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Samples | A. fumigatus | Mucor Species | A. niger | F. solani | A. flavus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n-hex (f) | 6.5 ± 0.5 | 7.5 ± 0.5 | 7 ± 0.7 | 7.5 ± 0.7 | 7.5 ± 0.7 |
| n-hex + CHCl3 (f) | 6.5 ± 0.6 | 6.5 ± 0.7 | 7.5 ± 0.5 | 7.5 ± 0.8 | 7.5 ± 0.7 |
| CHCl3 (f) | 7.5 ± 0.7 | 7 ± 0.85 | 6.5 ± 0.6 | 7.5 ± 0.5 | 6 ± 0.5 |
| EtOAc + n-hex (f) | 7.5 ± 0.5 | -- | -- | 7.5 ± 0.8 | -- |
| EtOAc (f) | 7.5 ± 0.7 | -- | 7.5 ± 0.5 | 7.5 ± 0.7 | -- |
| MeOH (f) | 6 ± 0.7 | -- | 7.5 ± 0.5 * | 7.5 ± 0.9 * | 7.5 ± 0.8 * |
| Terbinafine | 25.5 ± 2.5 *** | 24 ± 2.2 *** | 23 ± 2.1 *** | 25 ± 2.4 *** | 25 ± 2.4 *** |
| DMSO | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Brine Shrimp Lethality | LC50 | Inhibition of Leishmanial Promastigotes | Protein Kinase Inhibition | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Mortality at 200 µg/mL | (μg/mL) | % Inhibition | Diameter (mm) at 100 µg/Disk | |||
| Clear Zone | Bald Zone | |||||
| Samples | ||||||
| n-hex (f) | 98 ± 9.0 *** | 36.7 ± 1.9 | 95± 1.1 *** | 12.6 ± 0.77 | 7 ± 0.5 | -- |
| n-hex + CHCl3 (f) | 71 ± 8.0 *** | 52.2 ± 1.6 | 90 ± 1.7 *** | 19.5 ± 0.75 | -- | 11 ± 1.7 *** |
| CHCl3 (f) | 98 ± 9.0 *** | 38.5 ± 1.8 | 85 ± 1.2 * | 23.6 ± 1.5 | 6 ± 0.6 | -- |
| EtOAc + n-hex (f) | 86 ± 6.1 * | 64.5 ± 1.4 | 88 ± 1.3 ** | 25.3 ± 1.3 | -- | 13 ± 1.5 *** |
| EtOAc (f) | 70 ± 8.1 | 58.7 ± 1.5 | 75 ± 0.9 * | 33.5 ± 1.2 | -- | -- |
| MeOH (f) | 75 ± 6.6 | 62.7 ± 1.3 | 65 ± 0.9 | 40.6 ± 1.4 | 10 ± 1.7 *** | -- |
| Surfactin | -- | -- | -- | 17 ± 1.7 *** | ||
| Amphotericin-B | 100 ± 1.1 *** | 1.36 ± 1.5 | ||||
| Doxorubicin | 100 ± 9.1 *** | 5.36 ± 2.0 | -- | |||
| DMSO | -- | -- | -- | -- | ||
| DI-145 | HL-60 | MDA-MB231 | HT-29 | PC-3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samples | % Inhibition | IC50 | % Inhibition | IC50 | % Inhibition | IC50 | % Inhibition | IC50 | % Inhibition | IC50 |
| at 20 µg/mL | µg/mL | at 20 µg/mL | µg/mL | at 20 µg/mL | µg/mL | at 20 µg/mL | µg/mL | at 20 µg/mL | µg/mL | |
| n-hex (f) | 76 ± 1.6 ** | 22.2 ± 1.2 | 70 ± 1.2 ** | 15.21 ± 1.1 | 65 ± 1.6 | 45.2 ± 1.8 | 45 ± 0.7 | -- | 52 ± 1.1 | 45.1 ± 0.2 |
| n-hex + CHCl3 | 60 ± 1.5 | -- | 75 ± 1.2 ** | 20.5 ± 1.5 | 80 ± 1.5 *** | 22.5 ± 1.9 | 60 ± 1.1 | 41.2 ± 1.7 | 44 ± 0.6 | -- |
| CHCl3 (f) | 75 ± 1.4 * | 21.2 ± 1.3 | 40 ± 1.4 | -- | 40 ± 1.2 | -- | 56 ± 0.4 | 45.2 ± 1.5 | 50 ± 1.6 | -- |
| EtOAc + n-hex (f) | 76 ± 1.6 ** | 19.5 ± 1.7 | 70 ± 1.9 ** | 17.03 ± 1.1 | 65 ± 1.5 | 45.2 ± 1.9 | 45 ± 0.1 | 51.2 ± 1.8 | 52 ± 1.1 | 45.2 ± 1.9 |
| EtOAc (f) | 85 ± 1.4 *** | 11.1 ± 1.2 | 85 ± 2.2 *** | 7.03 ± 1.4 | 75 ± 1.1 ** | 23 ± 1.4 | 40 ± 0.1 | -- | 60 ± 1.6 * | 35.2 ± 1.1 |
| MeOH | 60 ± 1.1 | -- | 75 ± 1.2 ** | 20.5 ± 1.5 | 80 ± 1.8 *** | 25.5 ± 1.9 | 60 ± 1.3 * | 41.2 ± 1.7 | 44 ± 0.6 | -- |
| Taxol | 92 ± 1.6 *** | 3.21 ± 1.4 | 91 ± 1.1 *** | 2.88 ± 1.2 | 91 ± 1.2 *** | 3.44 ± 1.2 | 95 ± 2.5 *** | 2.9 ± 1.2 | 95 ± 2.5 *** | 3.8 ± 1.2 |
| Samples | NF-κB | MTP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Inhibition | IC50 | % Inhibition | IC50 | |
| at 20 μg/mL | (μg/mL) | at 20 μg/mL | (μg/mL) | |
| n-hex (f) | 75 ± 1.24 * | 31.5 ± 1.98 | 75 ± 1.12 *** | 31.5 ± 1.98 |
| n-hex + CHCl3 (f) | 68 ± 1.97 * | -- | 75 ± 1.24 ** | 30.6 ± 1.98 |
| CHCl3 (f) | 50 ± 0.17 * | -- | 65 ± 1.56 * | -- |
| EtOAc + n-hex (f) | 86 ± 1.97 ** | 29.4 ± 1.15 | 65 ± 1.24 * | 43.5 ± 1.98 |
| EtOAc (f) | 70 ± 1.97 ** | -- | 60 ± 1.15 * | -- |
| MeOH (f) | 75 ± 1.24 ** | 30.5 ± 1.98 | 80 ± 1.24 ** | 21.6 ± 1.98 |
| Rocaglamide | 100 ± 3.12 *** | 0.03 ± 1.13 | -- | -- |
| Staurosporine | -- | 95 ± 1.15 *** | 1.03 ± 1.22 | |
| Samples | P. aeruginosa ZOI (mm) | MIC | S. typhimurium ZOI (mm) | MIC | M. luteus ZOI (mm) | MIC | B. bronchiseptica ZOI (mm) | MIC | S. aureus ZOI (mm) | MIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEEA-C2 | 16 ± 1.5 *** | 11.1 | 10 ± 0.8 | 100 | 14.5 ± 1.7 *** | 11.1 | 13.5 ± 1.5 ** | 11.3 | 14 ± 1.7 *** | 33.3 |
| PEEA-C3 | 11.0 ± 1.5 | -- | 12.5 ± 1.7 ** | -- | 12.5 ± 1.5 ** | 33.3 | 10.5 ± 1.2 | -- | 7.7 ± 0.9 | 100 |
| RPEA-C5 | 10.5 ± 0.7 | -- | 11 ± 1.8 * | 100 | 6.5 ± 0.6 | 100 | 7.5 ± 0.8 | -- | 6 ± 0.6 | -- |
| Roxithromycin | 18.5 ± 2.9 *** | 1.1 | 16 ± 2.3 *** | 1.1 | 26.5 ± 2.4 *** | 0.1 | 22.5 ± 2.5 *** | 0.1 | 21 ± 2.3 *** | 0.1 |
| DMSO | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Samples | A. fumigatus ZOI (mm) | Mucor Species ZOI (mm) | A. niger ZOI (mm) | F. solani ZOI (mm) | A. flavus ZOI (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEEA-C2 | -- | -- | 7.5 ± 0.7 * | -- | -- |
| PEEA-C3 | 7.5 ± 0.6 * | -- | -- | 7.5 ± 0.8 * | -- |
| RPEA-C5 | -- | -- | 7.5 ± 0.8 * | -- | 7.5 ± 0.7 * |
| Terbinafine | 25.5 ± 2.5 *** | 24 ± 2.2 *** | 23 ± 2.1 *** | 25 ± 2.4 *** | 25 ± 2.4 *** |
| DMSO | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Samples | Brine Shrimp Lethality | LC50 | Inhibition of leishmanial Promastigotes | IC50 | Protein Kinase Inhibition | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Mortality at 200 µg/mL | (μg/mL) | % Inhibition | (μg/mL) | * Diameter (mm) at 100 µg/Disk | ||
| Clear Zone | Bald Zone | |||||
| PEEA-C2 | 82 ± 8.7 ** | 23.1 ± 1.2 | 82.43 ± 6.8 ** | 16.2 ± 1.7 | 13.5 ± 1.7 *** | |
| PEEA-C3 | 76 ± 7.2 * | 33.9 ± 1.2 | 70 ± 6.7 * | 36.9 ± 1.2 | -- | 12.5 ± 1.6 *** |
| RPEA-C5 | 60 ± 7.2 | 44.9 ± 1.5 | 65 ± 6.1 | 40.1± 1.2 | -- | 6.5 ± 0.8 |
| Doxorubicin | 100 ± 9.1 *** | 5.32 ± 2.0 | -- | |||
| Amphotericin-B | 100 ± 8.1 *** | 1.36 ± 0.1 | ||||
| DMSO | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Surfactin | 17 ± 1.02 *** | |||||
| Samples | DU-145 | HL-60 | MDA-MB231 | HT-29 | PC-3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Inhibition | IC50 | % Inhibition | IC50 | % Inhibition | IC50 | % Inhibition | ICI50 | % Inhibition | IC50 | |
| at 20 μg/mL | (μg/mL) | at 20 μg/mL | (μg/mL) | at 20 μg/mL | (μg/mL) | at 20 μg/mL | (μg/mL) | at 20 μg/mL | (μg/mL) | |
| PEEA-C2 | 90 ± 1.7 *** | 11.2 ± 1.2 | 89 ± 1.7 ** | 15.2 ± 1.1 | 70 ± 1.7 * | 29.4 ± 1.1 | 65± 2.5 * | -- | 75 ± 1.7 * | 31.2 ± 1.4 |
| PEEA-C3 | 80 ± 2.6 ** | 21.7 ± 1.4 | 85 ± 1.5 ** | 21.3 ± 1.6 | 75 ± 1.9 * | 31.2 ± 1.3 | 65 ± 1.7 * | 41.2 ± 1.4 | 40 ± 1.5 | |
| RPEA-C5 | 76 ± 1.6 * | 29.5± 1.7 | 70 ± 1.9 * | 25.3 ± 1.3 | 65 ± 1.6 | -- | 45 ± 0.1 | -- | 52 ± 1.1 | |
| Taxol | 98 ± 2.8 *** | 1.54 ± 1.1 | 100 ± 3.6 *** | 1.7 ± 1.6 | 95 ± 2.5 ** | 1.6 ± 1.2 | 95 ± 2.5 *** | 2.9 ± 1.2 | 95 ± 2.5 ** | 3.8 ± 1.2 |
| Samples | NF-κB | MTP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Inhibition | IC50 | % Inhibition | IC50 | |
| at 20 μg/mL | (μg/mL) | at 20 μg/mL | (μg/mL) | |
| PEEA-C2 | 80 ± 1.7 ** | 19.4 ± 1.1 | 75 ± 1.4 * | 28.6 ± 1.9 |
| PEEA-C3 | 60 ± 1.9 | -- | 65 ± 1.7 | -- |
| RPEA-C5 | -- | -- | 75 ± 1.4 * | 41.5 ± 1.1 |
| Rocaglamide | 100 ± 3.1 *** | 0.03 ± 1.3 | ||
| Staurosporine | 95 ± 1.15 *** | 1.03 ± 1.2 | ||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tabassum, S.; Ali, J.S.; Saeed, R.F.; Asghar, M.; Akhtar, M.; Ahmad, A.M.R.; Zia, M. Bioactivity-Directed Isolation of Anticancer Constituents from Underexplored Folklore: Rhus punjabensis Stewart. Molecules 2025, 30, 4339. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30224339
Tabassum S, Ali JS, Saeed RF, Asghar M, Akhtar M, Ahmad AMR, Zia M. Bioactivity-Directed Isolation of Anticancer Constituents from Underexplored Folklore: Rhus punjabensis Stewart. Molecules. 2025; 30(22):4339. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30224339
Chicago/Turabian StyleTabassum, Saira, Joham Sarfraz Ali, Rida Fatima Saeed, Madiha Asghar, Myra Akhtar, Abdul Momin Rizwan Ahmad, and Muhammad Zia. 2025. "Bioactivity-Directed Isolation of Anticancer Constituents from Underexplored Folklore: Rhus punjabensis Stewart" Molecules 30, no. 22: 4339. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30224339
APA StyleTabassum, S., Ali, J. S., Saeed, R. F., Asghar, M., Akhtar, M., Ahmad, A. M. R., & Zia, M. (2025). Bioactivity-Directed Isolation of Anticancer Constituents from Underexplored Folklore: Rhus punjabensis Stewart. Molecules, 30(22), 4339. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30224339

