Comparative investigation on radical scavenging activity and protective properties of natural isolated and synthetic antioxidants

3Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the free radical scavenging activity and protective properties of the natural product SQGD-IBG-21 isolated from a radioresistant bacterium Bacillus sp. INM-1 and synthetic nitroxyl free radical containing antioxidant 1-ethyl-1-nitroso-3-[4-(2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine- 1-oxyl)]-urea (SLENU). It was found a higher reducing power potential for SQGD (1.336±0.03357 Uabs) comparing to that of SLENU (0.196±0.002273Uabs); a higher nitric oxide radical scavenging activity 35.645 ±1,122% for SQGD in comparison with SLENU (19.964±2.233%). Total antioxidant capacity of SQGD was found to be 75±0.06%, while for SLENU it was only 22±0.03%. Maximum protection to the liposomes calculated in % inhibitory activity of two agents was found to be 50.04±0.037% for the natural agent and 27.54±0.33% for nitroxyl–labeled agent. By direct EPR spectroscopy stable radical structures were recorded in the solutions of both studied antioxidants: an o-semiquinone radical structure was recorded in aqueous solution of SQGD and nitroxyl free radical struture in the ethanol solution of SLENU, respectively. It should be mentioned that the natural antioxidant possesses higher protective properties in comparison with the synthetic antioxidant. In conclusion, because of well expressed free radical scavenging and antioxidant activities of both studied agents they might be used in the combination anticancer chemotherapy for reduction the toxicity caused by anticancer drugs and/or radiation therapy.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Karamalakova, Y., Sharma, J., Sharma, R. K., Gadjeva, V., Kumar, R., & Zheleva, A. (2014). Comparative investigation on radical scavenging activity and protective properties of natural isolated and synthetic antioxidants. Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment, 26, 175–179. https://doi.org/10.5504/50YRTIMB.2011.0032

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free