ArticleThe Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research2024
Method validation and antioxidant activities of Hyperacanthus amoenus and Carissa bispinosa.
Article in The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plant foliages used as feed additives pose a health risk due to high oxidant concentrations. Oxidants cause oxidative stress and high rate of morbidities and mortalities. Hence, the aim of the study was to validate the methods to quantify gallic acid (GA) and quercetin (Q) as putative antioxidants, and to evaluate antioxidant activities in feed (F), Hyperacanthus amoenus (HA) and Carissa bispinosa (CB) extracts. Extraction was carried out with 62.5% methanol. Method validations for linearity, accuracy and precision were performed on high performance liquid chromatography. Quantitative analysis of GA and Q and testing of 2,2-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) scavenging activities in the extracts were performed. The lowest limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.011 µg/mL and 0.032 µg/mL were determined in HA, respectively. The methods were accurate and precise as the relative standard deviations (%RSD) were less than 15%. The GA concentrations in CB and HA extracts were statistically significant (p 0.05) and their values were 0.65 ± 0.03 x 106 µg/kg dry weight (DW) (0.13%) and 0.28 ± 0.06 x 106 µg/kg DW (0.002%), respectively. All extracts showed very strong radical scavenging activities with their IC50 values ranging between 5.87 µg/mL and 6.86 µg/mL.Contribution: These accurate, repeatable, precise and reliable methods can be used to provide a valuable basis for GA and Q analysis in various shrub foliages. Though high GA concentrations have potential to act as antioxidants, they may have adverse health and growth performance effects when used as feed additives, while lower Q concentrations may have no effects on livestock.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.