• Users Online: 838
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
REVIEW
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 120-129

Insight into DNA protection ability of medicinal herbs and potential mechanisms in hydrogen peroxide damages model


1 Medicinal Plants Processing Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2 Biotechnology Research Center, Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
3 Medicinal Plants Processing Research Center; Department of Pharmacognosy, School of Pharmacy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Date of Submission19-Nov-2018
Date of Decision05-Jan-2018
Date of Acceptance30-Jan-2018
Date of Web Publication15-Feb-2018

Correspondence Address:
Mahmoodreza Moein
Medicinal Plants Processing Research Center, Shiraz, Iran; Department of Pharmacognosy, School of Pharmacy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2221-1691.225616

Get Permissions

  Abstract 


DNA damage is one of the most important consequences of oxidative stress in the cells. If DNA repair is unable to modify these inducible DNA damages, genomic instability may lead to mutation, cancer, aging and many other diseases. Single cell gel electrophoresis or comet assay is a common and versatile method to quantify these types of DNA damages. DNA damages induced by hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) are one of the proper models for measurement of protective ability of different compounds. So the main aim of this review is to provide an overview about protection ability of medicinal plants and their potential mechanism against H2O2 induced DNA damages. In this review, relevant researches on the effect of medicinal plants on DNA damages induced by H2O2 and possible molecular mechanisms are discussed. It seems that, medicinal plants are considered as therapeutic key factors to protect DNA from consequences caused by oxidative stress. Sufficient in vitro evidences introduce them as DNA protective agents through different mechanisms including antioxidant activity and some other cellular mechanisms. Moreover, in order to correlate the antigenotoxicity effects with their potential antioxidant property, most of medicinal plants were evaluated in term of antioxidant activity using standard methods. This review highlights the preventive effects of herbal medicine against oxidative DNA damages as well as provides rational possibility to engage them in animal studies and future clinical investigations.

Keywords: Herbal medicine, DNA damage, Comet assay, Hydrogen peroxide, Single cell gel electrophoresis


How to cite this article:
Sabahi Z, Soltani F, Moein M. Insight into DNA protection ability of medicinal herbs and potential mechanisms in hydrogen peroxide damages model. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 2018;8:120-9

How to cite this URL:
Sabahi Z, Soltani F, Moein M. Insight into DNA protection ability of medicinal herbs and potential mechanisms in hydrogen peroxide damages model. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed [serial online] 2018 [cited 2019 May 25];8:120-9. Available from: http://www.apjtb.org/text.asp?2018/8/2/120/225616




  1. Introduction Top


Throughout the lifespan of the cells, they expose to reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated by both endogenous metabolisms and exogenous resources. The overproduction of ROS which is defined as oxidative stress has serious pathological impacts on important biomacromolecules such as DNA and proteins[1]. Although the cells adopt compensatory mechanisms to overcome the deleterious effects of oxidative stress, but in some circumstances, DNA damages cannot be prevented and eventually correlate with etiology, resulting in different diseases such as cancer[2],[3],[4].

DNA damages can be measured by various methods such as high-performance liquid chromatography, gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, immunoassays and comet assay (single cell gel electropho resis)[5]. Among these methods, comet assay is most popular for DNA damage detection. It is a simple and useful method to evaluate the DNA damage and repair as well as DNA-protective effects of different compounds[6].

According to the previous researches, two-thirds of the world’s plant species have therapeutic value and many plants can protect cells against oxidative stress[7]. Although, significant role of bioactive natural products was clear, their application in modern drug discovery has been considerable since the 19th century. About 50% of the available drugs, directly or indirectly, are originated from natural products[8]. Additionally, natural products have been suggested as adjutant therapy for free radicals associated diseases, because of successful preclinical investigations which confirmed the antioxidant and cellular protective effects of natural compounds[9].

This review aimed to document the value of herbal medicines as protective agents against hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) induced DNA damages which were investigated by comet assay.


  2. ROS Top


ROS are reactive chemical molecules containing oxygen and are products of different cellular pathways[10]. Endogenously, they are natural byproducts of oxidative metabolism and mitochondrial aerobic respiration. Approximately 5% of oxygen is converted to endogenous ROS[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]. Bacterial phagocytosis, virus infected cells and degradation of fatty acids by peroxisome are other cellular sources of ROS[13]. In addition, they can be produced through the activity of several cellular enzymes including nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate-oxidases, xanthine oxidase, and uncoupled endothelial nitric oxide synthase[15]. However, various stress such as ionizing and ultraviolet radiation[11],[12],[16] as well as environmental and some of therapeutic agents can dramatically increase the level of ROS[11]. Although, the important role of ROS in cell signaling and homeostasis is well documented but they are considered as potential cause of several biomacromolecules (lipids, proteins and DNA) damage[11],[17],[18]. Accordingly, in normal situation the cells adopt various enzymatic and non-enzymatic protection mechanisms in order to protect themselves against such harmful effects. In this concept, the excessive amount of ROS is defined as oxidative stress which is the result of an imbalance between the production and the scavenging of free radicals[4],[19],[20].

Oxidative stress has contributed to etiology of ageing and several diseases such as cancer, atherosclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Alzheimer and Parkinson[3],[16],[18],[21],[22],[23],[24]. In spite of different issues related to ROS overproduction, one may assume that complete ROS elimination is useful, however this strategy is not recommended due to their critical role in different cellular pathways such as activation of guanylate cyclase and cGMP formation, interleukin-2 and transcription nuclear factor κB[15] and induction of apoptosis[25]. Another strategy that can be adopted is using antioxidants, either natural or synthetic ones, to boost the defense system against oxidative stress[26],[27],[28].

Most ROS include superoxide, hydroxyl radical, H2O2, nitric oxide, and hydroxyl ion. The most important ROS among these molecules is H2O2, regarding to the mitogenic effect, cell cycle regulation and DNA damage. Based on this, in this review we only focus on chemistry and biological effects of H2O2 and hydroxyl radical.

Mitochondria synthesize adenosine triphosphate through electron transport chain and it is related to reduction-oxidation (redox) reactions. This chain is made up of a series of compounds that transfer electrons from electron donors to electron acceptors. Molecular oxygen is the last electron acceptor in this transport chain[19]. Throughout these (and other) electron transfer reactions, high reactive metabolites of oxygen, namely superoxide anion (O2-), H2O2 and hydroxyl radical (OH-) are produced[19],[29],[30]. Peroxisomes are the other natural sources of H2O2 in cytosol[31].

These species have single and unpaired electron, which makes them highly chemically reactive and capable to donate another electron[32],[33]. Half-life of ROS is affected by environmental factors such as pH and other radical species[32]. Among oxygen derivatives, H2O2 is a non-radical compound but highly reactive, and is produced in high concentration in the living cells[32].

H2O2 is product of O2•- dismutation and other reactions mediated by different enzymes including monoamine oxidase, xanthine oxidase, urate oxidase and D-amino acid oxidase. It is also detectable in expired breath, human urine, blood and some other body fluids. In general, H2O2 is cytotoxic in different cell types at concentration equal or higher than 50 μΜ; however this is affected by various factors such as cell type, cell iron content, length of exposure, H2O2 concentration and the media of cell culture. Side effects of H2O2 are reduced by the activity of catalases, glutathione peroxidases and thioredoxin-linked systems[34]. H2O2 participates in oxidation reaction through a non-radical pathway[35]. Furthermore, the interaction of the superoxide (O2•-) radical and H2O2 results in the formation of highly reactive hydroxyl radicals[30],[36], which can be a source of more harmful species, such as hydroxyl radicals (OH) or hypochlorous acid[32]. Peroxidases and catalases can scavenge H2O2 in most organisms[30],[37].

It is accepted that decomposition of H2O2 depends on the presence of transition metal ions (especially Fe2+) in Fenton reaction[35],[36]. In this non-enzymatic reaction, Fe2+ reacts with H2O2 and produces OH•-, and Fe3+, then this ferric ion participates in Haber-Weiss reaction to form Fe2+[38].

Hydroxyl radical is a small, highly portable, water-soluble and extremely reactive radical[38] which is able to react as soon as formation[39]. Hydroxyl radicals are produced under cell stress conditions such as inflammations, embryo teratogenesis, and pathogen-defense reactions[40].

The rate of hydroxyl radical formation is about 50 hydroxyl radical per second, so that means each cell may produce 4 million hydroxyl radicals every day, which can be deactivated or may attack different biomacromolecules[37]. Hydroxyl radicals are able to carry out three different types of reactions including hydrogen abstraction, addition, or electron transfer, leading to produce new radicals and propagating some chain reactions.

Its prefer to react with electron density molecule site is due to electrophilic nature of this radical[41].This radical and hydroperoxyl are the most dominant ROS initiator in lipid peroxidation because of adequate energy to remove hydrogen atoms from unsaturated fatty acids. This attack can generate free radicals from polyunsaturated fatty acids [38]. Lipid peroxidation not only leads to loss of membrane property but also the resulting products can react with proteins, enzymes, and nucleic acids; which are associated with etiology of different diseases[42]. Nucleic acids, DNA and/or RNA, are the other targets of OH. Hydroxyl radical preferentially attacks to guanine base to form a C-8 OH-adduct, as discussed in the next section.

Some of DNA damages are results of reaction between DNA and lipid proxidation products such as malondialdehyde (MDA), 4-hydroxynonenal, acrolein and isoprostanes. It seems that MDA is the most mutagenic product of lipid peroxidation[16],[43]. 4-hydroxynonenal and MDA are powerful electrophile agents which are able to react with proteins and DNA and form protein carbonyls and etheno DNA adducts[16].


  3. DNA damage measurement Top


During past decades, different methods and techniques have been engaged to assess DNA damage. These are comprised of comet assay[44], mass spectrometry in combination with gas chromatography[44],[45],[46],[47],[48] or liquid chromatography[44],[46],[48],[49] immunochemical techniques, post-labeling assays, and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay[48]. The principal way among these methods is screening of analysis and single product of DNA damages. For instance, in the HPLC-ECD technique the 2′- deoxyribonucleoside form of 8-hydroxyguanine (8-OH-Gua, also called 8-oxoGua) is detected. Several previous reviews have documented the advantages and limitation of these methods[4],[44],[45],[46],[48],[50]. According to the aim of our paper, we focus on comet assay as a valuable method to detect DNA damages.

Over a period of past decade, single cell gel electrophoresis or comet assay[51] has become one of the standard, simple and reliable methods for examining the DNA damages and repair. It has been employed in a variety of genetic toxicology area including human biomonitoring, ecotoxicology, and fundamental genotoxicity studies[52],[53],[54]. In addition, it can be considered as a powerful tool for analyzing the effects of different nutrients, antioxidants, supplements and etc. on DNA damage and also pathologies such as cancer related to DNA damage[55],[56],[57],[58].

Technically, in this assay the isolated cells are suspended in agarose and layered on a microscope slide. The embedded cells are then lyzed by exposure to a high salt solution containing detergent which destroys the cell membrane and other components except the supercoiled DNA nucleoid. The prepared slides containing the embedded cells, so called “cell sandwich”, are submitted to electrophoresis which allows migration of DNA fragments (if there is any DNA strand breaks) toward the anode. In electric field, the velocity of DNA fragments varies based on their sizes. As there are DNA fragments with different sizes a typical comet shape having a head and a tail will be formed. In general, the amount of DNA damage is proportional to the percent of DNA in tail. The higher intensity of DNA in tail, the higher DNA break has occurred. Several comprehensive reviews are available in respect to come assay methodology[59]. Determining the specific type of DNA damage is likely by using protocol variants. The pH at which the immobilized nucleoids are electrophoresed can partly determine the type of strand breaks, namely single or double strand breaks. It was stated that by using alkaline (pH>13) version of comet assay, both single and double strand breaks are detected, and on the other hand in neutral conditions only double strand breaks can be detected[60]. However, this belief is not completely true because even at neutral comet assay, single strand breaks will be present in the tail. Alkali-labile sites, apurinic and apyrimidinic (AP) sites are also appeared as strand breaks in denaturation condition at pH>13. These sites are formed during base repair process and also in response to some chemical alterations. Accordingly, at neutral pH, AP sites cannot be revealed as a break. Beside these types of DNA damage, oxidized bases also occur in the cells after exposure to oxidative stress; however they cannot be detected by using common comet assay procedure. These forms of damage can be readily converted to strand breaks by incorporating lesion-specific enzymes such as formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase and endonuclease III after the cells are lyzed[58],[61]. Therefore, in order to evaluate the mechanism and also the sort of DNA damage the procedure has to be adjusted. The common alkaline comet assay can represent basal DNA damage and strand breaks. It seems that the potential of antioxidants, either natural or chemical to prevent oxidized base formation, cannot be assessed unless specific enzymes such as EndoII are included in the designed experiment. Otherwise, the results might be misinterpreted because the tail of a comet would be a mixture of AP sites, double and single strand breaks not exactly the breaks resulting from oxidized bases.

Regarding to the cells that researchers widely used, it should be noted that it depends on the goal of a study. For instances, if someone is looking for an antioxidant capable to protect normal cells against genotoxicity lymphocytes, normal cell lines such as fibroblasts are appropriate options[56],[57],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66]. In addition, some other cells such as PC12 or HepG2 can be utilized as neuronal or hepatic models respectively[67],[68],[69].

Although the comet assay is a simple and valuable technique, often there is large variability in the published results. This can be related to the presence of variations in different steps (cell isolation, treatment, lysis, electrophoresis), materials and also environmental conditions. In general, it seems that by standardization of different protocols these variations might be minimized. Furthermore, there are several parameters such as % DNA in tail, tail length and tail moment that can be used to report the final results of a comet assay. The lack of a unique appropriate parameter is another limitation of comet assay because it is almost unlikely to compare the results of different studies reporting various parameters. According to the literature, % DNA in tail, tail moment and also tail length were the most frequent parameters that were preferred for interpreting in a vast majority of toxicology studies.


  4. Medicinal plants as protective agents Top


Due to the great importance of DNA damages in genome integrity, researchers have made great efforts to prevent or diminish DNA damage in particular oxidative damage. In this sense, numerous strategies have been engaged[70].

To prevent or delay ROS-driven oxidative damage the cells utilize different enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant systems. Because of narrow endogenous antioxidant capacity, the cells have to protect themselves by exogenous antioxidants especially those from natural herbs[41],[71]. Moreover, the side effects of synthetic antioxidant, namely toxic and/or mutagenic effects, highlight the importance of natural antioxidant[26],[30]. Medicinal plants are one of the most important protective agents in this issue, as they possess various natural substances having different pharmacological effects, and used as long ago as 3 000 BC[72]. On the other hand, natural compatibility and less side effects of herbal medicine are reasons for consideration in health care[30],[73]. Certainly, these therapeutic effects are related to the presence of different determined compounds[72],[74].

One of the strategies that can be adopted to protect the cells against stress oxidative and nearly have no deleterious effects on cell components such as DNA is using natural-based antioxidants. With the aim to find efficient antigenotoxic agents, several studies have been conducted to assess the protective effects of different plant species and their secondary metabolites against oxidative DNA damage. H2O2, the most common genotoxic agent, was used as the oxidative damaging agent; however other genotoxic compounds such as methyl ethanesulfonate have been used in a few reports (in the current review we excluded the latter studies).

In order to find a relation between the type of plant or phytocompounds and their potential protective effects, herein we have focused on the most relevant studies that reported the antigenotoxic activity of various plants and/or metabolites against H2O2 induced DNA damages.

Based on the emerging interest of using comet assay as a simple and reliable method to evaluate antigenotoxic/genotoxic effects, we considered only the reports that applied this method. The comet assay can be used in two versions, neutral and alkaline. In both protocols, the breakage in the DNA strands can be detected. However, in order to determine whether or not oxidative damage occurs, an extra step has to be carried out. It is likely to evaluate oxidative damage by adding specific enzymes, capable of converting oxidized base to a break. Accordingly, it is helpful to include these enzymes in studies that aimed to analyze the effects on anti-oxidants on H2O2-induced DNA damages.

Our literature review showed that about 80 different species belonging to 38 families were used as the subject of studies in which their protective effects against H2O2 induced DNA damage were evaluated (complete data were not shown). Interestingly, the most of plants possessing protective effects belong to Lamiaceae family (22%), and the two other families namely, Asteraceae and Apiaceae are in the second and third ranking (about 5%), respectively [Figure 1]. The details of plants belong to these three families are explained in [Table 1]. Other plants which are introduced as protective in H2O2 models belong to families comprise Plantaginaceae (Plantago asiatica, Bacopa monniera)[75],[76], Rosaceae (Plantago asiatica, Bacopa monniera)[77],[78],[79], Solanaceae (Lycium chínense, Withania somnifera)[80],[81], Anacardiaceae (Mangifera indica, Rhus coriaria L.), Apocynaceae (Hemidesmus indicus, Gymnema montanum), Brassicaceae (Armoracia rusticana, Moricandia arvensis)[85],[86], Combretaceae (Terminalia arjuna, Terminalia bellerica Roxb.)[87], Fabaceae (Ceratonia siliqua, Lupinus luteus L.)[88],[89], Leguminosae (Acacia salicina, Glycyrrhiza glabra)[90],[91] and so on.
Figure 1: Frequency of use of the most plant families in protection assay against oxidative DNA damage induced by H2O2.

Click here to view
Table 1: Literature review of plants used to protect cells against DNA damages induced by H2O2.

Click here to view


In case of the part of plant used as protective agents is very imperative factor. Based on our bibliography, the most common parts of plants used in such studies were the leaves (28%), roots (15%) and aerial parts (12 %) respectively [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Frequency of plant parts used in protection against oxidative DNA damages induced by H2O2.

Click here to view


Apparently, in the most studies, plant extracts were used to determine protection activity, however plant extracts may not be proper sources for biological assay. It seems that several factors during extraction process might result in variation. For examples, length of the extraction time, pH, solvent, temperature, the size of plant tissue and the solvent-to-sample ratio may affect the extraction efficiency[58]. Furthermore, the seasonal and geographical factors may be considered as other reasons of variations[59]. Accordingly, reproducibility of biological activities of herbal extracts can be influenced by both biochemical differences and variability of extraction methods.

Besides, inconsistent reports about activity and efficacy of extracts might be related to different versatile compounds which may have synergistic or antagonistic activities. In addition, the observed results might be because of some unknown substances[60],[61].

4.1. Bioactive compounds

According to our literature review [Table 1] about 90% of plants were examined for their potential antioxidant properties using different methods. It is well-documented that antioxidants can prevent the pro-oxidation process, or biological oxidative damage[112]. It seems that DNA protection against oxidative stress could be related to the antioxidant property of the forementioned plants[112].

This consistency may be due to the presence of phenolic compounds as strong antioxidants, which are introduced in previous studies. It is assumed that there is a strong connection between the content of phenolic compounds and antioxidant activities[113],[114],[115],[116],[117].

These compounds are secondary metabolites and products of pentose phosphate, shikimate, and phenyl propanoid pathways in plants. They have a significant role in physiological and morphological characteristics[113]. In addition, they are involved in a variety of functions including reproduction, growth, defense and also plant color. On the other hand, these phytochemicals possess chemopreventive activities[118].

The base of their structures is an aromatic ring having one or more hydroxyl group. Their structure varies from simple phenolic molecules to polymer compounds. In some cases, natural phenolic compounds conjugate with polysaccharides, or conjugate with one or more phenolic groups or functional groups such as esters and methyl esters. They can be classified as phenolic acids, flavonoids, tannins and the less common stilbenes and lignans[119],[120]. The antioxidant activity of phenolic compounds is associated with several mechanisms: scavenging radical species, donating hydrogen atoms or electron, enzyme inhibition, chelating metal cations and upregulating or boosting antioxidant.

Their structure is a key cause of their antioxidant properties[113],[114]. Two chemical parts of phenolic compounds play an important role in free radical scavenging: phenolic hydroxyl groups and dihydroxy groups. Phenolic hydroxyl groups are able to donate a hydrogen atom or an electron to radical species, hydrocarbon backbone which delocalizes an unpaired electron[114], while dihydroxy groups can conjugate to transition metals such as Cu+ or Fe2+ to inhibit free radical formation by these metals in Fenton reaction. As mentioned previously, these metal ions interact with hydrogen peroxide in Fenton reaction to produce hydroxyl radicals[114]. Stoichiometry and kinetic of these reactions vary based on the different structures, for instances, hydroxyl groups, glycosylation and amount of steric hindrance of proton H abstraction[121].

4.2. Flavonoids

Flavonoids are of Latin originate “flavus” which means yellow. They are secondary metabolites contributing different colors (red, blue and purple) to the different parts of plants. They are a large group of phenolic compounds in which three rings (A, B and C) form their basic structure [Figure 3]. It seems that the hydroxyl groups attached to these rings are responsible for many biological activities[54],[118]. Results of many in vitro and in vivo studies confirm their possible health benefits, mainly due to potential antioxidant and free radical scavenging activities[122]. More than 5 000 flavonoids and 13 subclasses are defined so far. Flavonoid structure possesses phenyl benzopyrone containing A and B aromatic rings, attached to 3 carbons of C ring which is usually pyran ring. Based on saturating level and opening of the central pyran ring, flavonoids are subdivided into several subgroups.
Figure 3: Basic structure of flavonoids.

Click here to view


Occasionally, it was shown that glycosylation of flavonoids diminishes the free radical scavenging activities, however the water solubility is increased. 7-hydroxyl position is common position for sugar attachment in flavones and isoflavones. However, 3- and 7-hydroxyl positions are targets of glycosylation in flavonols. In addition, 3- and 5-hydroxyl in anthocyanidins are attached to the sugars more commonly[41],[118],[119].

The ability of flavonoids to reduce harmful effects of free radicals might be through different mechanisms. One direct approach is by free radical scavenging activity. Free radicals oxidized flavonoids generate more stable and less-reactive flavonoid radicals. On the other hand, hydroxyl groups which are highly reactive react with free radicals and produce stable radicals[114],[123]. This facts can be defined by thermodynamic rules which imply that low redox potential of hydroxyl in flavonoids would reduce free radicals such as superoxide, peroxyl, alkoxyl, and hydroxyl radicals through hydrogen donation[123]. Some flavonoids are superoxide scavenger, while the others are recognized as peroxynitrite scavengers.

The other approach that flavonoids apply is via inhibition of xanthine oxidase and protein kinase C. Xanthine oxidase has an important role in oxidative injury particularly after ischemia-reperfusion. This enzyme participates in metabolism of xanthine to uric acid and superoxide as well as free radicals[123]. Oxidation of xanthin leads to produce H2O2 and superoxide anion, which are the causes of oxidative damages[124]. The other enzymes that are inhibited by flavonoids include cyclooxygenase, lipoxygenase, microsomal succinoxidase and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide oxidase[122],[125]. Further, more antioxidant activity of some phenolic compounds is related to dihydroxy groups in their structure. They are able to be conjugated with transition metals so that free radical formation is inhibited. Through Fenton reaction, hydrogen peroxide interacts with Cu+ or Fe2+ to form OH, which is an initiator of free radical chain reactions such as lipid peroxidation[114],[123]. The metal chelating activity of flavonoids is related to hydroxy-keto group (a 3-OH or 5-OH plus a 4-C = O) and large number of catechol/gallol groups in their structures[114].

The results of several studies implied the strong relationship between flavonoid consumption and antioxidant capacity of plasma. This increased capacity may be due to increased level of uric acid, although the exact mechanism is unclear[122],[126]. Another mechanism of phenolic antioxidant is through cellular modulation. They improve the phase II detoxification activity of glutaion s-transferase and quinone reductase which possess a critical role in detoxification of chemical toxins[127].

Also, phenolics modulate various molecular targets in cellular signaling machinery systems. Mitogen-activated protein kinase, protein kinase C, and serine/threonine protein kinase Akt/PKB can be activated by phenolics. Pro-inflammatory enzymes (COX-2 and iNOS) genes can be down regulated and tyrosine kinases, NF-κB, c-JUN can be inhibited by phenolic compounds[128]. Phenolics are also able to reduce Bax and Bad protein production, which results in opening mitochondrial transition pore complex to inhibit oxidative stress[128],[129]. So, it seems that phenolics can mainly inhibit or induce key factors of cell signaling cascades rather than being just radical scavengers[73].


  5. Conclusion Top


ROS are products of endogenous and exogenous induction. In normal conditions, ROS play a role of signaling messenger in different cellular pathways but in higher concentrations will lead to reversible and nonreversible cellular damages. Oxidative stress resulting from increased ROS production has trace in etiology of different disease such as cancer.

Among various ROS, H2O2 is more permeable and is known as an intercellular signaling molecule which can be converted to the other ROS. Reaction between O2•- and H2O2, which are mediated by transition metal ions, generates OH which is able to attack DNA and trigger DNA damage. In many cases, unrepaired damages lead to genetic instability, which is responsible for many disease processes. This review has summarized some herbal medicines participate in DNA protection against H2O2-induced DNA damage detecting by comet assay.

Also, in this article, some of the natural compounds were described which have critical roles as radical scavengers and potent protective antioxidants. Distinct compounds or/and their combination were able to show these protective effects. Since several of these studies were conducted on plant extracts, it seems that this field of research needs more investigations to discover the defined substances and their distinct cellular mechanisms responsible for such antigenotoxicity effects. Certainly, in vivo studies should be carried out to confirm these effects and to introduce them in clinic as proper candidates to diminish DNA damages side effects. Furthermore, effectiveness, safety and possible adverse effects of herbal medicines should be considered for further developments. In addition, as several investigations in regard to the antigenotoxic effects were carried out as primary studies, further in vivo and mechanistic studies will be required to clarify the real DNA protective activity.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgements

The study was done in the School of Pharmacy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences.



 
  References Top

1.
Piedrafita G, Keller MA, Ralser M. The impact of non-enzymatic reactions and enzyme promiscuity on cellular metabolism during (oxidative) stress conditions. Biomolecules 2015; 5(3): 2101-2122.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Kumari S, Rastogi RP, Singh KL, Singh SP, Sinha RP. DNA damage: Detection strategies. Excli J 2008; 7: 44-62.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Tafani M, Sansone L, Limana F, Arcangeli T, Santis ED, Polese M, et al. The interplay of reactive oxygen species, hypoxia, inflammation, and sirtuins in cancer initiation and progression. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2016; 2016: 3907147.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Hecht F, Pessoa CF, Gentile LB, Rosenthal D, Carvalho DP, Fortunato RS. The role of oxidative stress on breast cancer development and therapy. Tumor Biol 2016; 37(4): 4281-4291.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Cadet J, Wagner JR. DNA base damage by reactive oxygen species, oxidizing agents, and UV radiation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2013; 5(2): 1-18.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Azqueta A, Collins AR. The essential comet assay: A comprehensive guide to measuring DNA damage and repair. Archiv Toxicol 2013; 87(6): 949-968.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Krishnaiah D, Sarbatly R, Nithyanandam R. A review of the antioxidant potential of medicinal plant species. Food Bioprod Process 2011; 89(3): 217-233.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Veeresham C. Natural products derived from plants as a source of drugs. J Adv Pharm Tech Res 2012; 3(4): 200-201.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Mancuso C. Key factors which concur to the correct therapeutic evaluation of herbal products in free radical-induced diseases. Front Pharmacol 2015; 6(86): 1-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Moller P, Loft S. Oxidative DNA damage in human white blood cells in dietary antioxidant intervention studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2002; 76(2): 303-310.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Cooke MS, Evans MD, Dizdaroglu M, Lunec J. Oxidative DNA damage: Mechanisms, mutation, and disease. Faseb J 2003; 17(10): 1195-1214.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Klaunig JE, Kamendulis LM, Hocevar BA. Oxidative stress and oxidative damage in carcinogenesis. Toxicol Pathol 2010; 38(1): 96-109.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Blair IA. DNA adducts with lipid peroxidation products. J Biol Chem 2008; 283(23): 15545-15549.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Filomeni G, De Zio D, Cecconi F. Oxidative stress and autophagy: The clash between damage and metabolic needs. Cell Death Differ 2015; 22(3): 377-388.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Dröge W. Free radicals in the physiological control of cell function. Physiol Rev 2002; 82(1): 47-95.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Thanan R, Oikawa S, Hiraku Y, Ohnishi S, Ma N, Pinlaor S, et al. Oxidative stress and its significant roles in neurodegenerative diseases and cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2014; 16(1): 193-217.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
McMurray R, Patten DA, Harper M-E. Reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress in obesity-recent findings and empirical App roaches. Obese 2016; 24(11): 2301-2310.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Zhu L, Chen J, Tan J, Liu X, Wang B. Flavonoids from Agrimonia pilosa Ledeb: Free radical scavenging and DNA oxidative damage protection activities and analysis of bioactivity-structure relationship based on molecular and electronic structures. Molecules 2017; 22(3): 195.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Thannickal VJ, Fanburg BL. Reactive oxygen species in cell signaling. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2000; 279(6): L1005-L1028.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Murphy MP, Holmgren A, Larsson NG, Halliwell B, Chang CJ Kalyanaraman B, et al. Unraveling the biological roles of reactive oxygen species. Cell Metabol 2011; 13(4): 361-366.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Halliwell B. Why and how should we measure oxidative DNA damage in nutritional studies? How far have we come? Am J Clin Nutr 2000; 72(5): 1082-1087.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Day BJ. Antioxidant therapeutics: Pandora's box. Free Rad Biol Med 2014; 66: 58-64.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Marnett LJ. Oxyradicals and DNA damage. Carcinogen 2000; 21(3): 361-370.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Caliskan-Can E, Miser-Salihoglu E, Atalay C, Yalcintas-Arsalan U, Simsek B, Yardim-Akaydin S. DNA damage and lipid peroxidation in several types of cancer. Fabad J Pharm Sci 2010; 35(3): 125-132.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Ziech D, Franco R, Georgakilas AG, Georgakila S, Malamou-Mitsi V, Schoneveld O, et al. The role of reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress in environmental carcinogenesis and biomarker development. Chem Biol Inter 2010; 188(2): 334-339.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Sabahi Z, Zarshenas MM, Farmani F, Faridi P, Moein S, Moein M. Essential oil composition and in vitro antioxidant activity of ethanolic extract of Thymus daenensis Celak from Iran. Glob J Pharmacol 2013; 7(2): 153-158.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Moein S, Moein MR. New usage of a fluorometric method to assay antioxidant activity in plant extracts. Iran J Pharm Sci 2012; 8(1): 71-78.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Kozarski M, Klaus A, Jakovljevic D, Todorovic N, Vunduk J, Petrovi P, et al. Antioxidants of edible mushrooms. Molecules 2015; 20(10): 19489-19525.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Rác M, upka MK , Binder S, ová MS , ková ZMš, ka MRš, et al. Oxidative damage of U937 human leukemic cells caused by hydroxyl radical results in singlet oxygen formation. PLoS One 2015; 10(3): 1-19.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Nimse SB, Pal D. Free radicals, natural antioxidants, and their reaction mechanisms. Rsc Adv 2015; 5(1): 27986-28006.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Circu ML, Aw TY. Reactive oxygen species, cellular redox systems, and apoptosis. Free Rad Biol Med 2010; 48(6): 749-762.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Kohen R, Nyska A. Oxidation of biological systems: Oxidative stress phenomena, antioxidants, redox reactions, and methods for their quantification. Toxicol Pathol 2002; 30(6): 620-650.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Filomeni G, De ZD, Cecconi F. Oxidative stress and autophagy: The clash between damage and metabolic needs. Cell Death Differ 2015; 22(3): 377-388.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Halliwell B, Clement MV, Ramalingam J, Long LH. Hydrogen peroxide. ubiquitous in cell culture and in vivo? Iubmb Life 2000; 50: 251-257.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Lipinski B. Hydroxyl radical and its scavengers in health and disease. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2011; 2011. Doi: 10.1155/2011/809696.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Linley E, Denyer SP, McDonnell G, Simons C, Maillard JY. Use of hydrogen peroxide as a biocide: New consideration of its mechanisms of biocidal action. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012; 67: 1589-1596.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Imlay JA. Cellular defenses against superoxide and hydrogen peroxide. Annu Rev Biochem 2008; 77: 755-776.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Ayala A, Muñoz MF, Argüelles S. Lipid peroxidation: Production, metabolism, and signaling mechanisms of malondialdehyde and 4-Hydroxy-2-nonenal. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2014; 2014: 360438.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Winterbourn CC. Reconciling the chemistry and biology of reactive oxygen species. Nat Chem Biol 2008; 4(5): 278-286.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Chen Sx, Schopfer P. Hydroxyl-radical production in physiological reactions. Eur J Biochem 1999; 260(3): 726-735.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Treml J, Šmejkal K. Flavonoids as potent scavengers of hydroxyl radicals. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 2016; 15(4): 720-738.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Niki E, Yoshida Y, Saito Y, Noguchi N. Lipid peroxidation: Mechanisms, inhibition, and biological effects. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005; 338(1): 668-676.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Łuczaj W, Skrzydlewska E. DNA damage caused by lipid peroxidation products. Cell Mol Biol Lett 2003; 8(2): 391-413.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Dizdaroglu M, Coskun E, Jaruga P. Measurement of oxidatively induced DNA damage and its repair, by mass spectrometric techniques. Free Rad Res 2015; 49(5): 525-548.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Cadet J, Douki T, Ravanat JL, Wagner JR. Measurement of oxidatively generated base damage to nucleic acids in cells: Facts and artifacts. Bioanal Rev 2012; 4(2): 55-74.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Dizdaroglu M, Coskun E, Jaruga P. Measurement of oxidatively induced DNA damage and its repair, by mass spectrometric techniques. Free Rad Res 2015; 49(5): 525-548.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Cadet J, Douki T, Ravanat JL. Oxidatively generated base damage to cellular DNA. Free Rad Biol Med 2010; 49(1): 9-21.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Liu S, Wang Y. Mass spectrometry for the assessment of the occurrence and biological consequences of DNA adducts. Chem Soc Rev 2015; 44(21): 7829-7854.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Samson-Thibault F, Madugundu GS, Gao S, Cadet J, Wagner JR. Profiling cytosine oxidation in DNA by LC-MS/MS. Chem Res Toxicol 2012; 25: 1902-1911.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Rangel-Zuñiga OA, Haro C, Tormos C, Perez-Martinez P, Delgado-Lista J, Marin C, et al. Frying oils with high natural or added antioxidants content, which protect against postprandial oxidative stress, also protect against DNA oxidation damage. Eur J Nutr 2017; 56(4): 1597-1607.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Ostling O, Johanson KJ. Microelectrophoretic study of radiation-induced DNA damages in individual mammalian cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1984; 123(1): 291-298.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Collins AR. The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: Principles, applications, and limitations. Mol Biotechnol 2004; 26(3): 249-261.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Alija AJ, Collins AR, Dreshaj S, Asllani F, Bajraktari ID, Bresgen N, et al. Differences in basal DNA damage in blood cells from men and women. Biomonitoring 2016; 3(1): 1-4.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Townsend TA, Parrish MC, Engelward BP, Manjanatha MG. The development and validation of epi Comet-chip, a modified high-throughput comet assay for the assessment of DNA methylation status. Environ Mol Mutagen 2017; 58(7): 508-521.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Cemeli E, Baumgartner A, Anderson D. Antioxidants and the comet assay. Mutat Res 2009; 681(1): 51-67.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Jamialahmadi K, Soltani F, Nabavi FM, Behravan J, Mosaffa F. Assessment of protective effects of glucosamine and N-acetyl glucosamine against DNA damage induced by hydrogen peroxide in human lymphocytes. Drug Chem Toxicol 2014; 37(4): 427-432.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Rezaee R, Behravan E, Behravan J, Soltani F, Naderi Y, Emami B, et al. Antigenotoxic activities of the natural dietary coumarins umbelliferone, herniarin and 7-isopentenyloxy coumarin on human lymphocytes exposed to oxidative stress. Drug Chem Toxicol 2014; 37(2): 144-148.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Wasson GR, McKelvey-Martin VJ, Downes CS. The use of the comet assay in the study of human nutrition and cancer. Mutagenesis 2008; 23(3): 153-162.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Collins AR. The comet assay. Principles, applications, and limitations. Methods Mol Biol 2002; 203: 163-177.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Olive PL, Wlodek D, Banath JP. DNA double-strand breaks measured in individual cells subjected to gel electrophoresis. Cancer Res 1991; 51(17): 4671-4676.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Møller P, Jantzen K, Løhr M, Andersen MH, Jensen DM, Roursgaard M, et al. Searching for assay controls for the Fpg- and hOGG1-modified comet assay. Mutagenesis 2017. Doi: 10.1093/mutage/gex015.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Ehtesham-Gharaee M, Eshaghi A, Shojaee S, Asili J, Emami SA, Behravan J, et al. Protective effects of Scutellaria lindbergii root extract against oxidative-induced cell and DNA damage in mouse fibroblastlike cells. Drug Chem Toxicol 2015; 38(3): 293-299.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Noroozi S, Mosaffa F, Soltani F, Iranshahi M, Karimi G, Malekaneh M, et al. Antigenotoxic effects of the disulfide compound persicasulfide A (PSA) on rat lymphocytes exposed to oxidative stress. Planta Med 2009; 75(1): 32-36.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Soltani F, Mosaffa F, Iranshahi M, Karimi G, Malekaneh M, Haghighi F, et al. Evaluation of antigenotoxicity effects of umbelliprenin on human peripheral lymphocytes exposed to oxidative stress. Cell Biol Toxicol 2009; 25(3): 291-296.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Soltani F, Mosaffa F, Iranshahi M, Karimi G, Malekaneh M, Haghighi F, et al. Auraptene from Ferula szowitsiana protects human peripheral lymphocytes against oxidative stress. Phytother Res 2010; 24(1): 85-89.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Zarei H, Rezaee R, Behravan E, Soltani F, Mosaffa F, Iranshahi M, et al. Diversin, from Ferula diversivittata protects human lymphocytes against oxidative stress induced by H2O2. Nat Prod Res 2013; 27(11): 1016-1019.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Jeon GI, Yoon MY, Park HR, Lee SC, Park E. Neuroprotective activity of Viola mandshurica extracts on hydrogen peroxide-induced DNA damage and cell death in PC12 cells. Ann NY Acad Sci 2009; 1171: 576-582.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Jin X, Chen Q, Tang SS, Zou JJ, Chen KP, Zhang T, et al. Investigation of quinocetone-induced genotoxicity in HepG2 cells using the comet assay, cytokinesis-block micronucleus test and RAPD analysis. Toxicol In Vitro 2009; 23(7): 1209-1214.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Ramos AA, Lima CF, Pereira ML, Fernandes-Ferreira M, Pereira-Wilson C. Antigenotoxic effects of quercetin, rutin and ursolic acid on HepG2 cells: Evaluation by the comet assay. Toxicol Lett 2008; 177(1): 66-73.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Polo SE, Jackson SP. Dynamics of DNA damage response proteins at DNA breaks: a focus on protein modifications. Genes Dev 2011; 25(5): 409-433.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Kumar KH, Khanum F. Hydroalcoholic extract of Cyperus rotundus ameliorates H2O2- induced human neuronal cell damage via its antioxidative and anti-apoptotic machinery. Cell Mol Neurobiol 2013; 33(1): 5-17.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Kumar V, Lemos M, Sharma M, Shriram V. Antioxidant and DNA damage protecting activities of Eulophia nuda Lindl. Free Rad Antiox 2013; 3(2): 55-60.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Sen S, Chakraborty R, Sridhar C, Reddy Y, De B. Free radicals, antioxidants, diseases and phytomedicines: Current status and future prospect. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res 2010; 3(1): 91-100.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Moein S, Moein M, Farmani F, Sabahi Z. Different methods evaluation of antioxidant properties of Myrtus communis extract and its fractions. Trend Pharm Sci 2015; 1(3): 153-158.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Pandareesh M, Anand T, Bhat PV. Cytoprotective propensity of Bacopa monniera against hydrogen peroxide induced oxidative damage in neuronal and lung epithelial cells. Cytotechnol 2016; 68(1): 157-172.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Ramakrishna V, Guptab KP, Setty OH, Kondapia AK. Protective effect of Ficus bengalensis L. extract against H2O2 induced DNA damage and repair in neuroblastoma cells. Free Rad Antiox 2014: 4(1): 3-7.  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
Mustapha N, Bouhlel I, Chaabane F, Bzéouich IM, Ghedira K, Hennebelle T, et al. Aqueous extract of Crataegus azarolus protects against DNA damage in human lymphoblast cell K562 and enhances antioxidant activity. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2014; 172(4): 2266-2275.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Kang JS, Kim DJ, Kim GY, Cha HJ, Kim S, Kim HS, et al. Ethanol extract of Prunusmume fruit attenuates hydrogen peroxide-induced oxidative stress and apoptosis involving Nrf2/HO-1 activation in C2C12 myoblasts. Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia 2016; 26(2): 184-190.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Liu M, Xu Y, Han X, Liang C, Yin L, Xu L, et al. Potent effects of flavonoid-rich extract from Rosa laevigata Michx fruit against hydrogen peroxide-induced damage in PC12 cells via attenuation of oxidative stress, inflammation and apoptosis. Molecules 2014; 19(8): 11816-11832.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Zhang R, Kang KA, Piao MJ, Kim KC, Kim AD, Chae S, et al. Cytoprotective effect of the fruits of Lycium chinense Miller against oxidative stress-induced hepatotoxicity. J Ethnopharmacol 2010; 130(2): 299-306.  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
Kumar N, Yadav A, Gupta R, Aggarwal N. Antigenotoxic effect of Withania somnifera (Ashwagandha) extract against DNA damage induced by hydrogen peroxide in cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 2016; 5(4): 713-719.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Kim H, Moon JY, Kim H, Lee DS, Cho M, Choi HK, et al. Antioxidant and antiproliferative activities of mango (Mangifera indica L.) flesh and peel. Food Chem 2010; 121(2): 429-436.  Back to cited text no. 82
    
83.
Chakraborty A, Ferk F, Simi T, Brantner A, Dušinská M, Kundi M, et al. DNA-protective effects of sumach (Rhus coriaria L.), a common spice: Results of human and animal studies. Mut Res 2009; 661(1): 10-17.  Back to cited text no. 83
    
84.
Ramkumar K, Sankar L, Manjula C, Krishnamurthi K, Devi SS, Chakrabarti T, et al. Antigenotoxic potential of Gymnema montanum leaves on DNA damage in human peripheral blood lymphocytes and HL-60 cell line. Environ Mol Mutagenesis 2010; 51(4): 285-293.  Back to cited text no. 84
    
85.
Gafrikova M, Galova E, Sevcovicova A, Imreova P, Mucaji P, Miadokova E. Extract from Armoracia rusticana and its flavonoid components protect human lymphocytes against oxidative damage induced by hydrogen peroxide. Molecules 2014; 19(3): 3160-3172.  Back to cited text no. 85
    
86.
Skandrani I, Boubaker J, Bouhlel I, Limem I, Ghedira K, Chekir-Ghedira L. Leaf and root extracts of Moricandia arvensis protect against DNA damage in human lymphoblast cell K562 and enhance antioxidant activity. Environment Toxicol Pharmacol 2010; 30(1): 61-67.  Back to cited text no. 86
    
87.
Ramakrishna V, Gupta KP, Setty HO, Kondapi KA. Neuroprotective effect of Emblica Officinalis extract against H2O2 induced DNA damage and repair in neuroblastoma cells. J Homeop Ayurv Med 2014; S1: 2-5.  Back to cited text no. 87
    
88.
Sassi A, Bouhlel I, Mustapha N, Mokdad-Bzeouich I, Chaabane F, Ghedira K, et al. Assessment in vitro of the genotoxicity, antigenotoxicity and antioxidant of Ceratonia siliqua L. extracts in murine leukaemia cells L1210 by comet assay. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2016; 77: 117-124.  Back to cited text no. 88
    
89.
Rucinska A, Gabryelak T. Effect of genistein-8-C-glucoside from Lupinus luteus on DNA damage assessed using the comet assay in vitro. Cell Biol Int 2009; 33(2): 247-252.  Back to cited text no. 89
    
90.
Bouhlel I, Valenti K, Kilani S, Skandrani I, Sghaier MB, Mariotte AM, et al. Antimutagenic, antigenotoxic and antioxidant activities of Acacia salicina extracts (ASE) and modulation of cell gene expression by H2O2 and ASE treatment. Toxicol In Vitro 2008; 22(5): 1264-1272.  Back to cited text no. 90
    
91.
Kaur P, Kaur S, Kumar N, Singh B, Kumar S. Evaluation of antigenotoxic activity of isoliquiritin apioside from Glycyrrhiza glabra L. Toxicol In Vitro 2009; 23(4): 680-686.  Back to cited text no. 91
    
92.
Lin KH, Yang YY, Yang CM, Huang MY, Lo HF, Liu KC, et al. Antioxidant activity of herbaceous plant extracts protect against hydrogen peroxide-induced DNA damage in human lymphocytes. BMC Res Notes 2013; 6(1): 490.  Back to cited text no. 92
    
93.
Kamdem JP, Adeniran A, Boligon AA, Klimaczewski CV, Elekofehinti OO, Hassan W, et al. Antioxidant activity, genotoxicity and cytotoxicity evaluation of lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.) ethanolic extract: Its potential role in neuroprotection. Ind Crops Prod 2013; 51: 26-34.  Back to cited text no. 93
    
94.
Yen GC, Hung YL, Hsieh CL. Protective effect of extracts of Mesona procumbens Hemsl. on DNA damage in human lymphocytes exposed to hydrogen peroxide and UV irradiation. Food Chem Toxicol 2000; 38(9):747-754.  Back to cited text no. 94
    
95.
Aherne SA, Kerry JP, O’Brien NM. Effects of plant extracts on antioxidant status and oxidant-induced stress in Caco-2 cells. Br J Nutr 2007; 97: 321-328.  Back to cited text no. 95
    
96.
Kapiszewska M, Soltys E, Visioli F, Cierniak A, Zajac G. The protective ability of the Mediterranean plant extracts against the oxidative DNA damage. The role of the radical oxygen species and the polyphenol content. J Physiol Pharmacol Suppl 2005; 56(1): 183-197.  Back to cited text no. 96
    
97.
Sree V, Sri PU, Ramarao N. Neuro-protective properties of Orthosiphon Staminus (Benth) leaf methanolic fraction through antioxidant mchanisms on SH-SY5Y cells: An in-vitro evaluation. Int J Pharm Sci Res 2015; 6(3): 1115-1125.  Back to cited text no. 97
    
98.
Žegura B, Dobnik D, Niderl MH, Filipi M. Antioxidant and antigenotoxic effects of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) extracts in Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and HepG2 cells. Environment Toxicol Pharmacol 2011; 32(2): 296-305.  Back to cited text no. 98
    
99.
Russo A, Formisano C, Rigano D, Cardile V, Arnold NA, Senatore F. Comparative phytochemical profile and antiproliferative activity on human melanoma cells of essential oils of three lebanese Salvia species. Ind Crops Prod 2016; 83: 492-499.  Back to cited text no. 99
    
100.
Bettaieb I, Hamrouni-Sellami I, Bourgou S, Limam F, Marzouk B. Drought effects on polyphenol composition and antioxidant activities in aerial parts of Salvia officinalis L. Acta Physiol Plant 2011; 33(4): 1103-1111.  Back to cited text no. 100
    
101.
Orhan IE, Senol FS, Ercetin T, Kahraman A, Celep F, Akaydin G, et al. Assessment of anticholinesterase and antioxidant properties of selected sage (Salvia) species with their total phenol and flavonoid contents. Ind Crops Prod 2013; 41: 21-30.  Back to cited text no. 101
    
102.
Kozics K, Klusová V, Sran íková A, Mu aji P, Slame ová D, Hunáková, et al. Effects of Salvia officinalis and Thymus vulgaris on oxidantinduced DNA damage and antioxidant status in HepG2 cells. Food Chem 2013; 141(3): 2198-2206.  Back to cited text no. 102
    
103.
Sghaiera MB, Ismail MB, Bouhlel I, Ghedira K, Chekir-Ghedira L. Leaf extracts from Teucrium ramosissimum protect against DNAdamage in human lymphoblast cell K56 and enhance antioxidant,antigenotoxic and antiproliferative activity. Environment Toxicol Pharmacol 2016; 44: 44-52.  Back to cited text no. 103
    
104.
Sloley BD, Urichuk LJ, Tywin C, Coutts RT, Pang PKT, Shan JJ. Comparison of chemical components and antioxidant capacity of different Echinacea species. J Pharmacy Pharmacol 2001; 53(6): 849-857.  Back to cited text no. 104
    
105.
Asadpour E, Ghorbani A, Sadeghnia H. Water-soluble compounds of lettuce inhibit DNA damage and lipid peroxidation induced by glucose/ serum deprivation in N2a cells. Acta Pol Pharm 2014; 71(3): 409-413.  Back to cited text no. 105
    
106.
Skała E, Sitarek P, Ró alski M, Krajewska U, Szemraj J, Wysoki ska H, et al. Antioxidant and DNA repair stimulating effect of extracts from transformed and normal roots of Rhaponticum carthamoides against induced oxidative stress and DNA damage in CHO cells. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2016; 2016(1): 5753139.  Back to cited text no. 106
    
107.
Pittella F, Dutra RC, Junior DD, Lopes MT, Barbosa NR. Antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of Centella asiatica (L) Urb. Int J Mol Sci 2009; 10(9): 3713-3721.  Back to cited text no. 107
    
108.
Sondhi N, Bhardwaj R, Kaur S, Chandel M, Kumar N, Singh B. Inhibition of H2O2-induced DNA damage in single cell gel electrophoresis assay (comet assay) by castasterone isolated from leaves of Centella asiatica. Health 2010; 2(06): 595-602.  Back to cited text no. 108
    
109.
Olejnik A, Rychlik J, Kido M, Czapski J, Kowalska K, Juzwa W, et al. Antioxidant effects of gastrointestinal digested purple carrot extract on the human cells of colonic mucosa. Food Chem 2016; 190: 1069-1077.  Back to cited text no. 109
    
110.
Noroozi S, Mosaffa F, Soltani F, Iranshahi M, Karimi G, Malekaneh M, et al. Antigenotoxic effects of the disulfide compound persicasulfide A (PSA) on rat lymphocytes exposed to oxidative stress. Planta Med 2009; 75(01): 32-36.  Back to cited text no. 110
    
111.
Soltani F, Mosaffa F, Iranshahi M, Karimi G, Malekaneh M, Haghighi F, et al. Auraptene from Ferula szowitsiana protects human peripheral lymphocytes against oxidative stress. Phytother Res 2010; 24(1): 85-89.  Back to cited text no. 111
    
112.
Naghibi F, Mosaddegh M, Motamed SM, Ghorbani A. Labiatae family in folk medicine in Iran: From ethnobotany to pharmacology. Iran J Pharm Res 2005; 2: 63-79.  Back to cited text no. 112
    
113.
Balasundram N, Sundram K, Samman S. Phenolic compounds in plants and agri-industrial by-products: Antioxidant activity, occurrence, and potential uses. Food Chem 2006; 99(1): 191-203.  Back to cited text no. 113
    
114.
Dai J, Mumper RJ. Plant phenolics: Extraction, analysis and their antioxidant and anticancer properties. Molecules 2010; 15(10): 7313-7352.  Back to cited text no. 114
    
115.
Moein M, Moein S. Antioxidant activities and phenolic content of Juniperus excelsa extract. Iran J Pharm Sci 2010; 6(2): 133-140.  Back to cited text no. 115
    
116.
Moein S, Moein M, Khoshnoud MJ, Kalanteri T. In vitro antioxidant properties evaluation of 10 iranian medicinal plants by different methods. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2012; 14(12): 771-775.  Back to cited text no. 116
    
117.
Gonçalves S, Moreira E, Grosso C, Andrade PB, Valentão P, Romano A. Phenolic profile, antioxidant activity and enzyme inhibitory activities of extracts from aromatic plants used in Mediterranean diet. J Food Sci Technol 2017; 54(1): 219-227.  Back to cited text no. 117
    
118.
Huang WY, Cai YZ, Zhang Y. Natural phenolic compounds from medicinal herbs and dietary plants: Potential use for cancer prevention. Nutr Cancer 2009; 62(1): 1-20.  Back to cited text no. 118
    
119.
Duthie GG, Duthie SJ, Kyle JA. Plant polyphenols in cancer and heart disease: Implications as nutritional antioxidants. Nutr Res Rev 2000; 13(01): 79-106.  Back to cited text no. 119
    
120.
Procházková D, Boušová I, Wilhelmová N. Antioxidant and prooxidant properties of flavonoids. Fitoterapia 2011; 82(4): 513-523.  Back to cited text no. 120
    
121.
Nijveldt RJ, Van Nood E, Van Hoorn DE, Boelens PG, Van Norren K, Van Leeuwen PA. Flavonoids: A review of probable mechanisms of action and potential applications. Am J Clin Nutr 2001; 74(4): 418-425.  Back to cited text no. 121
    
122.
Nagao A, Seki M, Kobayashi H. Inhibition of xanthine oxidase by flavonoids. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 1999; 63(10): 1787-1790.  Back to cited text no. 122
    
123.
Brown EJ, Khodr H, Hider CR, Rice-Evans CA. Structural dependence of flavonoid interactions with Cu2+ ions: Implications for their antioxidant properties. Biochem J 1998; 330(3): 1173-1178.  Back to cited text no. 123
    
124.
Cao G, Russell RM, Lischner N, Prior RL. Serum antioxidant capacity is increased by consumption of strawberries, spinach, red wine or vitamin C in elderly women. J Nutr 1998; 128(12): 2383-2390.  Back to cited text no. 124
    
125.
Owuor ED, Kong ANT. Antioxidants and oxidants regulated signal transduction pathways. Biochem Pharmacol 2002; 64(5): 765-770.  Back to cited text no. 125
    
126.
Soobrattee MA, Neergheen VS, Luximon-Ramma A, Aruoma OI, Bahorun T. Phenolics as potential antioxidant therapeutic agents: Mechanism and actions. Mut Res 2005; 579(1): 200-213.  Back to cited text no. 126
    
127.
Mandel S, Youdim MB. Catechin polyphenols: Neurodegeneration and neuroprotection in neurodegenerative diseases. Free Rad Biol Med 2004; 37(3): 304-317.  Back to cited text no. 127
    
128.
Rahal A, Kumar A, Singh V, Yadav B, Tiwari R, Chakraborty S, et al. Oxidative stress, prooxidants, and antioxidants: The interplay. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 761264.  Back to cited text no. 128
    
129.
Dizdaroglu M, Jaruga P. Mechanisms of free radical-induced damage to DNA. Free Rad Res 2012; 46(4): 382-419.  Back to cited text no. 129
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. ROS
3. DNA damage me...
4. Medicinal pla...
5. Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1437    
    Printed70    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded204    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal