ArticleViewAbstractPharmacognosy Journal,2015,7,5,317-325.DOI:10.5530/pj.2015.5.12Published:01/2015Type:Original ArticleComparative Pharmacognostic, Phytochemical and Biological evaluation between five Chlorophytum speciesSharada Laxman Deore, Neha Brijmohan Jajoo, Kailaspati Prabhakar Chittam, and Tushar Atmaram Deshmukh Sharada Laxman Deore*1, Neha Brijmohan Jajoo1, Kailaspati Prabhakar Chittam2, Tushar Atmaram Deshmukh3 1Department of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, Government College of Pharmacy, Amravati, Maharashtra, India. 2Department of Pharmacognosy, A. R. A. College of Pharmacy, Deopur road, Nagaon, Dhule Maharashtra, India. 3Department of Pharmacognosy, Tapi Valley Education Society’s Hon’ble, Loksevak Madhukarrao Chaudhari College of Pharmacy, Faizpur, Maharashtra, India.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.View:PDF (1000.45 KB) PDF Images Graphical Abstract ‹ Hepatoprotective effect of Livplus-A polyherbal formulation up