02689nas a2200265 4500008004100000245010700041210006900148260001200217300001200229490000600241520191200247653001702159653001702176653002502193653000902218653001002227653001002237653000802247653001502255100002702270700002702297700003502324700003002359856003402389 2015 eng d00aComparative Pharmacognostic, Phytochemical and Biological evaluation between five Chlorophytum species0 aComparative Pharmacognostic Phytochemical and Biological evaluat c01/2015 a317-3250 v73 a

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.

10aArundinaceum10aBorivilianum10aChlorophytum Comosum10aDPPH10aHL-6010aLaxum10aSRB10aTuberosum.1 aDeore, Sharada, Laxman1 aJajoo, Neha, Brijmohan1 aChittam, Kailaspati, Prabhakar1 aDeshmukh, Tushar, Atmaram uhttps://phcogj.com/article/81