METHODS: Cocoa pod extract (CPE) composition was accomplished using UHPLC. The antioxidant capacity were measured using scavenging assay of 1,2-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), β-carotene bleaching assay (BCB) and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP). Inhibiting effect on skin degradation enzymes was carried out using elastase and collagenase assays. The skin whitening effect of CPE was determined based on mushroom tyrosinase assay and sun screening effect (UV-absorbance at 200-400 nm wavelength).
RESULTS: LC-MS/MS data showed the presence of carboxylic acid, phenolic acid, fatty acid, flavonoids (flavonol and flavones), stilbenoids and terpenoids in CPE. Results for antioxidant activity exhibited that CPE possessed good antioxidant activity, based on the mechanism of the assays compared with ascorbic acid (AA) and standardized pine bark extract (PBE); DPPH: AA > CPE > PBE; FRAP: PBE > CPE > AA; and BCB: BHT > CPE > PBE. Cocoa pod extract showed better action against elastase and collagenase enzymes in comparison with PBE and AA. Higher inhibition towards tyrosinase enzyme was exhibited by CPE than kojic acid and AA, although lower than PBE. CPE induced proliferation when tested on human fibroblast cell at low concentration. CPE also exhibited a potential as UVB sunscreen despite its low performance as a UVA sunscreen agent.
CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, the CPE has high potential as a cosmetic ingredient due to its anti-wrinkle, skin whitening, and sunscreen effects.
METHODS: Different parts of the plants were subjected to sequential extraction method. Cytotoxicity of the extracts was determined by dimethylthiazol-2-yl)- 2,5diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay on 2 human cancer (colon and breast) and normal (endothelial and colon fibroblast) cells. Anti-angiogenic potential was tested using ex vivo rat aortic ring assay. DPPH (1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl) assay was conducted to screen the antioxidant capabilities of the extracts. Finally, total phenolic and flavonoid contents were estimated in the extracts using colorimetric assays.
RESULTS: The results indicated that out of 6 plants tested, 4 plants (Nicotiana glauca, Tephrosia apollinea, Combretum hartmannianum and Tamarix nilotica) exhibited remarkable anti-angiogenic activity by inhibiting the sprouting of microvessels more than 60%. However, the most potent antiangiogenic effect was recorded by ethanol extract of T. apollinea (94.62%). In addition, the plants exhibited significant antiproliferative effects against human breast (MCF-7) and colon (HCT 116) cancer cells while being non-cytotoxic to the tested normal cells. The IC50 values determined for C. hartmannianum, N. gluaca and T. apollinea against MCF-7 cells were 8.48, 10.78 and 29.36 μg/ml, respectively. Whereas, the IC50 values estimated for N. gluaca, T. apollinea and C. hartmannianum against HCT 116 cells were 5.4, 20.2 and 27.2 μg/ml, respectively. These results were more or less equal to the standard reference drugs, tamoxifen (IC50 = 6.67 μg/ml) and 5-fluorouracil (IC50 = 3.9 μg/ml) tested against MCF-7 and HCT 116, respectively. Extracts of C. hartmannianum bark and N. glauca leaves demonstrated potent antioxidant effect with IC50s range from 9.4-22.4 and 13.4-30 μg/ml, respectively. Extracts of N. glauca leaves and T apollinea aerial parts demonstrated high amount of flavonoids range from 57.6-88.1 and 10.7-78 mg quercetin equivalent/g, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: These results are in good agreement with the ethnobotanical uses of the plants (N. glauca, T. apollinea, C. hartmannianum and T. nilotica) to cure the oxidative stress and paraneoplastic symptoms caused by the cancer. These findings endorse further investigations on these plants to determine the active principles and their mode of action.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed at two chemotherapy providers. Patients were questioned about use of three categories of CAM, mind-body practices (MBPs), natural products (NPs) and traditional medicine (TM). PFH was also examined separately from CAM to better characterise the patterns of CAM and PFH used during chemotherapy.
RESULTS: A total of 546 eligible patients participated in the study; 70.7% (n = 386) reported using some form of CAM, and 29.3% (n = 160) were non-CAM users. When PFH was excluded as a CAM, fewer patients reported the use of CAM (66.1%; n = 361). The total number of patients who used MBPs decreased from 342 to 183. The most common CAM use category was NPs (82.8%), followed by MBPs (50.7%), and TM (35.7%). CAM users were more likely to have a tertiary education (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.15-3.89 vs. primary/lower), have household incomes > RM 3,000 (≈944 USD) per month (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.40-3.84 vs. ≤RM 3,000 (≈944 USD)), and have advanced cancer (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18-2.59 vs. early stage cancer), compared with non-CAM users. The CAM users were less likely to have their chemotherapy on schedule (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.58 vs. chemotherapy postponed) than non-CAM users. Most MBPs were perceived to be more helpful by their users, compared with the users of NPs and TM.
CONCLUSION: CAM use was prevalent among breast cancer patients. Excluding PFH from the definition of CAM reduced the prevalence of overall CAM use. Overall, CAM use was associated with higher education levels and household incomes, advanced cancer and lower chemotherapy schedule compliance. Many patients perceived MBP to be beneficial for improving overall well-being during chemotherapy. These findings, while preliminary, clearly indicate the differences in CAM use when PFH is included in, and excluded from, the definition of CAM.