| Autor: |
Cetin, Emel Oyku, Salmanoglu, Derya Selcen, Ozden, Ilknur, Ors-Kumoglu, Gizem, Akar, Sibel, Demirozer, Melis, Karabey, Fatih, Kilic, Kubilay Dogan, Kirilmaz, Levent, Uyanikgil, Yigit, Sevimli-Gur, Canan |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Nutrition & Cancer; 2022, Vol. 74 Issue 1, p265-277, 13p, 1 Color Photograph, 1 Black and White Photograph, 3 Charts, 5 Graphs |
| Abstrakt: |
Propolis is a candidate for cancer treatment with its activity against different tumor cells and, has a wide spectrum of biological and pharmacological activities due to the diversity of its components. In this study, antitumorigenic activities of ethanol extract of propolis (EEP) and ethanol extract of propolis loaded niosome (PLN) were compared using 2D and 3D cell culture. Niosome formulations were prepared by thin film hydration technique. Cell viability of EEP and PLN was analyzed on MCF7, A549, MDA-MB-231, SK-MEL, SK-BR-3, DU145 and L-929 cell lines using MTT assay. L929, MCF7 and A549 cells were cultured using the 3D petri dish technique and their spherical forms were obtained after 142 h. After 24 h, PLN and EEP application, cell viability analysis was performed on 3D cultures with WST assay. As a result, niosome formulations containing EEP showed higher activity than ethanol extract of propolis in cancer cells. While a slow decrease was observed in cell viability in EEP treated cancer cells, it was observed that the percentage viability rates decreased in a shorter time in PLN treated cancer cells. Also, PLN can be used as an anticancer activity drug such as Doxorubicin, but this is not the case for EEP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
|
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje |
K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.
|
