Professional Documents
Culture Documents
15.10-14 International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Vol 6, Issue 8, 2014 PDF
15.10-14 International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Vol 6, Issue 8, 2014 PDF
Academic Sciences
Original Article
OPTIMIZATION OF GROWTH PROMOTERS ON DESMODIUM GANGETICUM (L) DC USING RSMCCD AND ITS ANTIOXIDANTS ACTIVITY
G.NARENDRA KUMAR1*, SELVA KUMAR3, S.VIMALAN4, P.PRAKASH1, S. NANDAGOPAL1, R.BARANI KUMAR2
1 Faculty of Bio & Chemical Engineering, Department of Biotechnology, Sathyabama University, Chennai-600 119. 2 Faculty of Bio &
Chemical Engineering, Department of Bioinformatics, Sathyabama University, Chennai-600 119. 3 Department of Microbiology, Sri Ganesh
college of Science, Salem - 636 014.4 Rasi Nutri Foods, Namakkal- 636 301
Email: gnaren22@gmail.com
Results: Models were developed by Central composite design (CCD) with the selected parameters. The regression analysis (R2) of RSM showed
97%. The optimal conditions for the maximal callus yield were IAA - 3, IBA - 0.5, BAP - 0.75 and Kinetin - 0.75.The work reported is a novel concept
of combining the statistical modeling for an improved yield of callus of Desmodium gangeticum. The antioxidant activity of the intact plant compared
which callus by superoxide scavenging, Hydroxy radical scavenging activity, Lipid peroxide assay, Nitric oxide radical inhibition activity.
Conclusion: The development of rapid and efficient method for media preparation was established using RSM-CCD.
Keywords: Desmodium gangeticum, Response Surface Methodology Central Composite Design, Anti-oxidant activity, IAA, IBA, BAP, Kinetin.
INTRODUCTION
Plants are remarkable source of natural products which are used as
pharmaceuticals, neutraceuticals, agrochemicals flavor and aroma
ingredients, food additives and pesticides [1]. Desmodium gangeticum
(L.) DC. (Fabaceae) is a small shrub of tropical regions that has been used
as a bitter tonic, antipyretic, digestive and antiemetic in inflammatory
conditions of the chest and other organs. D. gangeticum has also been
reported to contain alkaloids, flavone and isoflavanoid glycosides. The
plant has been reported to contain gangetin, a pterocarpnoid shown to
possess anti-inflammatory and analgesic activities.
(W2 W1 )
t2 t1
Kumar et al.
t 2 -t 1 30 days.
RESULTS
The in vivo grown plant and the callus after 30 days of growth were
air dried, powdered and extracted with 70% methanol. The extracts
were evaporated to dryness and difference concentration (10100g/ml) were prepared and used for the study.
Antioxidant activity
Callus induction
Callus induction was observed in the three basal mediums MS,
Whites and Gamborg in the initiation of callus containing different
concentration and combinations of IAA, IBA, BAP, KIN. Within 10-15
days of incubation, the explants depending upon the concentration
and combination of hormones were inducted calli. There was a wide
range variation in callus induction and average fresh weight of
callus. Highest callus induction was observed in MS medium
containing 0.5 mg /L BAP and 1 mg /L IAA, Gamborg and 1 mg /L
IBA produced the least. The combination with Whites medium
showed less frequency of callus induction.
Table 1: Effect of basal medium on callus induction of
Desmodium gangeticum
Medium
Murashige and Skoog
Gamborgs B5
Whites
Factor 1
A:IAA
coded
1
-1
-1
0
2
0
0
-1
1
1
1
0
0
1
-1
1
-1
0
-2
-1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
-1
-1
actual
2
0
0
1
3
1
1
0
2
2
2
1
1
2
0
2
0
1
-1
0
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
Factor 2
B:IBA
Coded
1
-1
1
2
0
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0
1
1
-1
1
-2
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
-1
-1
Actual
1
0
1
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
1
1
0
1
-0.5
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
Factor 3
C:BAP
Coded
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
-1
1
-1
1
2
-2
-1
-1
-1
1
0
0
-1
0
1
0
0
-1
0
0
0
1
-1
Actual
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0
1.5
0
1.5
2.25
-0.75
0
0
0
1.5
0.75
0.75
0
0.75
1.5
0.75
0.75
0
0.75
0.75
0.75
1.5
0
Factor 4
D:Kin
coded
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
-1
-1
0
0
-1
1
1
-1
0
0
-1
-2
-1
0
0
1
0
2
0
-1
-1
actual
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
1.5
1.5
0
0
0.75
0.75
0
1.5
1.5
0
0.75
0.75
0
-0.75
0
0.75
0.75
1.5
0.75
2.25
0.75
0
0
Response in
Milligram
Actual
2.92
0
0.56
1.25
3.825
2.15
2.15
1.26
2.96
0.56
3.03
1.56
0.56
0.67
1.36
3.08
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.25
0.56
3.25
1.64
1.67
3.02
1.96
1.96
1.86
0.25
0
Predicted
3.09
-0.09
0.31
1.23
3.09
1.91
1.91
1.33
2.93
0.66
2.80
1.59
0.70
0.73
1.56
2.77
0.85
0.76
0.46
0.13
0.56
3.04
1.91
1.91
2.76
1.91
2.13
1.91
0.37
-0.19
504
Kumar et al.
Sum of
Squares
34.82
19.76
0.33
1.18
3.67
0.06
2.50
0.34
0.03
0.01
3.89
0.24
1.43
0.99
0.54
0.99
0.74
0.25
Df
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
10
5
Mean
Square
2.48
19.76
0.33
1.18
3.67
0.06
2.50
0.34
0.03
0.01
3.89
0.23
1.43
0.98
0.54
0.07
0.07
0.05
F
Value
37.64
299.05
5.04
17.90
55.58
0.92
37.89
5.22
0.40
0.10
58.87
3.62
21.68
14.95
8.11
1.48
p-value
Prob > F
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0401
0.0007
< 0.0001
0.3510
< 0.0001
0.0373
0.5368
0.7527
< 0.0001
0.0766
0.0003
0.0015
0.0122
0.3488
Values
0.257084
1.533167
0.972323
0.946491
0.9308
23.57
16.77
4.63
505
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
21.
Declared None
REFERENCES
22.
1.
23.
2.
3.
4.
24.
25.
26.
Kumar et al.
507