@article {1472, title = {Comparative pharmacognostic, phytochemical and biological evaluation between five Chlorophytum species}, journal = {Pharmacognosy Journal}, volume = {7}, year = {2015}, month = {16th Jan, 2015}, pages = {147-156}, type = {Original Article}, chapter = {147}, abstract = {

Five species, Chlorophytum borivilianum Santapau and Fernades, Chlorophytum comosum (Thunb.) Jacq., Chlorophytum tuberosum Br., Chlorophytum laxum R. Br. and C. arundinaceum, of very popular Ayurvedic plant Safed Musali are collected and comparatively evaluated for morphological, microscopical, physicochemical and biological parameters.

Key words: Chlorophytum, borivilianum, comosum, tuberosum, laxum, arundinaceum, DPPH, SRB, HL-60.

}, keywords = {Arundinaceum, Borivilianum, Chlorophytum, comosum, DPPH, HL-60., Laxum, SRB, tuberosum}, author = {Sharada. L. Deore and Neha B. Jajoo and Kailaspati P.A Chittam and T.A.Deshmukh} } @article {81, title = {Comparative Pharmacognostic, Phytochemical and Biological evaluation between five Chlorophytum species}, journal = {Pharmacognosy Journal}, volume = {7}, year = {2015}, month = {01/2015}, pages = {317-325}, type = {Original Article}, chapter = {317}, abstract = {

Objective: To establish comparative pharmacognostic, phytochemical and biological evaluation parameters between five Chlorophytum species i.e. Chlorophytum borivilianum Santapau and Fernades, Chlorophytum comosum (Thunb.) Jacq., Chlorophytum tuberosum Br., Chlorophytum laxum R. Br. and Chlorophytum arundinaceum Baker, of very popular Ayurvedic plant Safed Musali. Materials and methods: Comparative evaluations of Macro and microscopical, physico-chemical parameters of tubers of all five species were investigated and preliminary phytochemical analysis, estimation of major phytochemicals and TLC profiles were also carried out for qualitative phytochemical evaluation. In-vitro antioxidant and anticancer activity was carried out for extract of tubers of all five species. Results: Macro, micro, powder microscopical parameters of tubers of five species were examined and recorded the result. Tubers of all the five species are distinct in their morphology as well as anatomical characters. Physicochemical characters (Ash values, Loss on drying (LOD), swelling index and foaming index) as well as total saponin content shows great variability among five species. Results of In-vitro antioxidant by DPPH method shows difference in antioxidant potential between tubers of all five species. Extract of tubers of all five species do not show any type of In-vitro anticancer activity by SRB method against HL 60 leukemia cell line. Conclusion: All of the evaluated parameters are very good pharmacognostic standards for future comparative identification and authentication of specific species because all five species shows morphological, anatomical, chemical differences as well as varies in antioxidant potential.

}, keywords = {Arundinaceum, Borivilianum, Chlorophytum Comosum, DPPH, HL-60, Laxum, SRB, Tuberosum.}, doi = {10.5530/pj.2015.5.12}, author = {Sharada Laxman Deore and Neha Brijmohan Jajoo and Kailaspati Prabhakar Chittam and Tushar Atmaram Deshmukh} }