ArticlePloS one2025
Extraction efficiency and bioactive evaluation of Tamarix nilotica and Arthrocnemum macrostachyum extracts for anti-cancer potential.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrative proteomics and metabolomics advance early cancer detection and targeted therapy with emerging technologies and clinical applications.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Solvent-Based Extraction Recovers Phytochemicals from Medicinal Plants Demonstrating Anticancer and Chemopreventive Potential: A Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Floristic assessment and soil-vegetation dynamics in an arid zone: a case study of the old Katameya-Ain Sokhna Road, Eastern Desert, Egypt.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the potential of phytochemicals from two native UAE plant species, Arthrocnemum macrostachyum and Tamarix nilotica, as anti-cancer agents. The plant extracts were obtained using two methods, maceration, and microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), and were subsequently evaluated for their in vitro cytotoxicity against three cancer cell lines: breast (MDA-MB-231), colon (HCT-116), and lung (A-549). Results suggest that: 1) MAE is more efficient than maceration in recovering metabolites from plant biomass based on measurements of total phenolic content, radical scavenging activity, and bioactivity of extracts based on in vitro cytotoxicity. 2) Only T. nilotica extracts were found to be bioactive based on cytotoxicity measurements. 3) Cancer cell lines displayed differential sensitivity to T. nilotica crude extracts, with breast cancer cells being the most sensitive and lung cancer cells being the least sensitive. 4) Solid-phase fractionation of T. nilotica crude extract using different percentages of methanol resulted in several fractions that were 100-fold more cytotoxic compared to the crude unfractionated extract. The 30% and 70% methanol fractions exhibited the highest cytotoxicity towards breast and colon cancer cell lines, respectively. 5) Untargeted metabolomics using UHPLC-Q-ToF-MS of T. nilotica crude extracts revealed 909 molecular features, of which only 327 were annotated using MS/MS fragmentation. The results suggest that T. nilotica extracts have potential as anti-cancer agents and that MAE is an efficient method for extracting phytochemicals from plant biomass. The study also revealed that cancer cell lines exhibited differential sensitivity to the extracts and that solid-phase fractionation of crude extract using different percentages of methanol can yield fractions that are more cytotoxic than the crude extract.
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.