- Open Access
Genotoxicity induced by medicinal plants
Bulletin of the National Research Centre volume 46, Article number: 119 (2022)
The use of medicinal plants in curing diseases is an ancient culture still in use in many parts of the world. Many plants have been proven to have precise ethno-pharmacological relevance. On the contrary, many folkloric plants have also been found to possess DNA damaging effects. Hence, assessing the safety profile of medicinal herbs before being approved for use must be undertaken.
This review focuses on medicinal plants exerting genotoxicity effect within through in vivo studies on the bone marrow, erythrocyte or other organs on animal models and in vitro studies on bacterial cells or mammalian cell lines such as mammalian lymphocytes, human hepatoma cell line or HepG2, mouse lung fibroblast cell lines or human adenocarcinoma cell lines. This review has found that several medicinal plants possess genotoxic potentials and are not safe to use. The common methodologies several authors have used include the comet assay, micronucleus assay, bacterial reverse mutation assay, Ames test or Salmonella/microsome assay.
Plants that have been proven to be genotoxic are not reduced to a particular family, while groups including Fabaceae, Asteraceae, Euphorbiaceae, Rosaceae, Lamiaceae and Apocynaceae appear to be frequent. To avoid any mutation in its users, genotoxicity assessment of therapeutic plants appears to be required.
The ethno-social lives of different tribes of people throughout the world have seen to be inevitably reliant on plants and their products for therapeutic purposes. In many indigenous cultures, knowledge and practice of using herbal medicine has been passed from generation to generation. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 70– 80% of the world population depends exclusively on herbs for their primary health care (Chan 2003; Muhammad et al. 2011; Sponchiado et al. 2016). In India, about 7000–7500 species of plants have medicinal usage in folk and documented systems of medicine (Pandey et al. 2013). It is believed that as many as 25,000 different formulations are prepared from these plants as a cure against various diseases and disorders (Pandey et al. 2013). Even in the process of developing new drugs, plant constituents constitute an important component as in vitro molecular syntheses are difficult, and most can be used as a prototype for the synthesis of new drugs.
It is a common belief that the herbal products are safe and more efficient than their allopathic counterparts which make its uses more prominent. However, since this assumption is false and harmful, toxicological research on herbal medications should be conducted (Kahaliw et al. 2018). Studies have revealed that some plants frequently used in folk medicine were potentially genotoxic (Marques et al. 2003; Ananthi et al. 2010; Melo-Reis et al. 2011; Regner et al. 2011; Shin et al. 2011; Sponchiado et al. 2016). The interaction of any toxic material may lead to numerous chromosomal aberrations including chromatid breaks, isochromatid breaks, gaps, chromosomal fragments, exchanges, and sister chromatid unions; even in case of the change in DNA structure. The consequences of such DNA impairment could be the establishment of and/or predisposition to diseases, increased morbidity/mortality, changes in heritable characteristics, and impaired reproductive capacity (Lázaro et al. 2010; Sponchiado et al. 2016).
The leap in the biophysical techniques has made studies on toxicity diverse and advance. There were many assays following different methodologies and strategies that have been developed to make the toxicity study efficient. The establishment of these protocols has been based on studies demonstrating the correlation between carcinogenicity and mutagenicity, and the correlation of both parameters with genotoxicity (Dearfield et al. 1991; Waters et al. 1999). Since then, established processes for assessing the genotoxic risk associated with the use of medications, food additives, pesticides, industrial and environmental chemicals, as well as natural items such as medicinal plants and their oils, have been employed (Waters et al. 1999; Chen-Chen and Sena 2002; Costa et al. 2018).
There are several different species of plants that are being used to cure various diseases such as headache, respiratory infection, inflammation, gastrointestinal disorders, memory loss, stress, insomnia, anemia, diminishing eyesight and sexual impotency, dermatitis, diabetes, wounds and pains, and cancers. The genotoxic potentials have been recorded here. Any plant may have potential genotoxic capability in a limited region or throughout, and the chemical employed to make the extract, as well as the model organism utilised, have a significant impact on this conclusion in vivo or in vitro. Through this study, an effort has been made to find out the assays used and where and how they have been experimented on along with families where these plants belong.
Medicinal plants and genotoxic assays
The inherent knowledge of folkloric herbal medicine is a pivotal aspect of ethnicity which should be scientifically tested upon. Many familiar plants have been found to contain compounds bearing DNA damaging impact (Fig. 1). There are specific procedures and protocols known as “genotoxic assay” to ensure the safety profile of any suspected candidate (Fig. 2). Genotoxic assays have different endpoints, such as single- and double-strand breaks, point mutations, deletions, chromosomal aberration, micronuclei formation, DNA repair, and cell-cycle interactions (Ng et al. 2010). Different assays which have been found to be used while studying these plants are in vivo or in vitro comet assay (CA), micronucleus test (MN), Ames test or Salmonella/microsome assay or Bacterial reverse mutation assay (BRM), Allium cepa test (ACT), and chromosomal aberration assay (ChA). Vitotox assay (VA), yH2AX In-Cell Western Assay (WA), mouse lymphoma tk assay (MLtk), and lysogenic induction assay (LI) have also been used to find out genotoxic medicinal plants.
The choice of assay to be performed is a crucial decision in geno-toxicological studies. It's worth noting that genotoxicity should be assessed using a series of assays because no one test can identify total genotoxicity (Saravanan et al. 2020). Specificity in detection even comes along with models and extracts. An aqueous extract of nine medicinal plants known in natural Korean medicine under the name “Gumi ganghwaltang” demonstrated genotoxicity in the Ames test and Chinese hamster lung cell culture (CHL cells) but was inactive for the micronuclei count in polychromatophylic mice erythrocytes (Shin et al. 2011; Durnev and Lapitskaia 2013). An aqueous extract of six plants “Pyungwisan,” which belong to the same group of natural drugs, induced chromosome aberrations in a test with CHL cells in vitro (Shin et al. 2011; Durnev and Lapitskaia 2013).
Preparation of the extract from the desired parts of the plant is a major determining step in any scientific study. Different solvents were used to prepare them based on the physical and chemical properties of the constituents (Fig. 3). Solvents commonly used in extraction of medicinal plants are polar solvent (e.g., water, alcohols), intermediate polar (e.g., acetone, dichloromethane), and nonpolar (e.g., n-hexane, ether, chloroform) (Abubakar and Haque 2020). In general, extraction procedures include maceration, digestion, decoction, infusion, percolation, Soxhlet extraction, superficial extraction, ultrasound-assisted, and microwave-assisted extractions (Abubakar and Haque 2020). When the manner of extracts utilized in research is quantified, alcoholic extracts are shown to be the most popular.
In vitro studies
In vitro genotoxic assays represent simple, robust and time and cost-effective testing of targeted toxicity and underlying mechanisms (Dusinka et al. 2012). In vitro studies have been done using Ames test, in vitro comet and micronucleus test, in vitro chromosomal aberration assay, vitotox assay, mouse lymphoma tk assay on bacterial strains or mammalian cell lines such as HepG2 cell line, lymphocytes or peripheral mononuclear blood cell line following Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guideline 473 (2016). Several workers have worked using both in vitro and in vivo assays.
Tsuboy et al. (2010), Maronpot (2015), Shin et al. (2015), Akhtar et al. (2016), Sharif et al. (2017), Quadros et al. (2017), Madikizela and McGaw (2017), Jeong et al. (2018a, b), Kon-Young et al. (2020), Saravanan et al. (2020), and Zhao et al. (2020) studied different plants using in vitro Bacterial reverse mutation assay or Ames test or Salmonella/microsome assay. It was based on induction of reverse mutation in the histidine gene, which enables the bacteria to synthesize histidine and form visible colonies in minimal histidine medium (Dusinka et al. 2012). The protocols that are followed are given by Maron and Ames (1983) and Mortelmans and Zeiger (2000).
The first ever toxicity (genotoxicity and cytotoxicity) study using Vitotox assay which was also a bacterial genotoxicity test was performed by Chichico-Hernandez et al. (2011) with 100% methanolic extracts of Cassia fistula, Derris elliptica, Ficus elastica, Gliciridia sepium, Michelia alba, Morus alba, Pogostemon cablin and Ricinus communis on two different strains of Salmonella typhimurium (TA 104) based on their SOS response and found genotoxic effect only on P. cablin and R. communis. One has a luciferase gene under the control of the recN promoter, which leads to light production when DNA is damaged (TA 104-recN2-4 strain or Genox strain) while the second one contains lux-genes under the control of a constitutive promoter so that the light production is not influenced by genotoxic compounds (pr1 or Cytox strain). It serves as an internal control wherein, if the light production goes up, the test compounds affect the lux gene in a different way than damaging the DNA. On the other hand, a decrease in light production would indicate a toxic response (Chichico-Hernandez et al. 2011).
The in vitro chromosomal aberration test identifies agents that cause structural chromosomal aberrations in cultured media. Kulkarni et al. (2010) used this technique with the methanolic extracts made from fruit and leaf of Persea Americana on human peripheral blood cells and found the occurrence of acrocentric associations and premature centromeric separation. Cell cultures are exposed to the test substance both with and without metabolic activation and are treated with a metaphase-arresting substance (colcemid or colchicine) before harvest (Dusinka et al. 2012) which then can detect the presence of aberrant chromosome microscopically.
Comet assay is found to be the most repeated assay. This method represents a rapid, sensitive, reliable, robust and relatively inexpensive way to study DNA damage (including DNA oxidation), and repair in different cell types both in vitro as well as in vivo (Dusinka et al. 2012). Sassi et al. (2016) performed in vitro comet assay with Ceratonia siliqua extract in murine leukemia cell; Maistro et al. (2019) with Salix alba bark extract on PBMC and HepG2 cells; Beeran et al. (2020) on human adenocarcinoma cell line with Vernonia cinerea, and Ahmadi et al. (2021) with the extract of Ziziphora clinopodioides on PBMC. Any breakage in DNA strand can be observed as that of comets when put under electrophoresis. The more is the damage in DNA; more is the number of comets formed and hence is a proof of more genotoxicity impact.
In vivo study
Compared with in vitro genotoxicity assay, in vivo genotoxicity assay has been used to verify in vitro assay result and definitely provide biological significance for certain organs or cell types (Kang et al. 2013). In vivo genotoxicity tests using tissues can be used when obtaining in vitro positive results that can reflect absorption, excretion, distribution and metabolism of chemicals but the in vitro test does not (Sasaki et al. 2002; Benigni et al. 2012; Kang et al. 2013). Most of the studies are anyway based on in vivo protocols of comet and micronucleus assay.
In vivo comet assay and micronucleus test can be performed on any type of animal tissue and even blood sample after the proper treatment on the model organism. Tsuboy et al. (2010) performed in vivo comet assay by withdrawing peripheral blood puncturing caudal vein following the guideline given by Tice et al. (2000) in Coccoloba mollis. Whether several other workers followed the protocols given by Singh et al. (1988) which was modified by Hartmann and Speit (1997), except for Boiera et al. (2010) who followed the modified protocol of Da Silva et al. (2000). One of the most popular protocol of micronucleus (MN) test is to observe the presence of micronucleus on bone marrow after flushing out the femurs as done by Regner et al. (2011) on the hexane extract of aerial parts of Pterocaulon polystachyum, Asare et al. (2012) with ethanolicc extract of Phyllanthus niruni and several others.
Another popular in vivo study is Allium cepa test where the Allium cepa root tip is studied after treatment for the presence of chromosomal aberration in mitotic stage. Ping et al. (2012), Almeida et al. (2016), Paw et al. (2020), Gogoi et al. (2020), Dey et al. (2021), de Souza et al. (2020) and Asita et al. (2021) studies genotoxicity using this assay on Euphoria hirta, Jatropha gossypiifolia, Curcuma caesia, Cymbopogon khasianus, Aristolochia indica, Chaptalia nutants, respectively.
Genotoxicity study to explore the toxicity measures of different medicinal plants used in folkloric medicine culture have led quite a prominent way till now (Table 1). The detailed study of the literature mentioned is a proof of that. There were many in vitro and in vivo studies that have been done so far with various plants. This does not only set forth the toxicity measures of the herbs but also explicit how different cultures and regions in earth have been inevitably dependent on herbs for physical well-being. This study has covered plants under families such as Fabaceae, Lamiaceae, Cactaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Apiaceae, Alismataceae, Passifloraceae, Lauraceae, Magnoliaceae, Amaryllidaceae, Cypreaceae, Leguminoceae, Cannabiceae, Sapindaceae, Asteraceae, Phyllanthaceae, Apocynaceae, Bignoniacaeae, Ranunculaceae, Tiliaceae, Polygalaceae, Combrataceae, Moraceae, Crassulaceae, Celastraceae, Magnoliaceae, Lythraceae, Combrataceae, Urticaceae, Dilliaceae, Pittosporaceae, Hypoxidaceae, Annonaceae, Vochysiaeae, Rubiaceae, Anacardiaceae, Saliaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Zingiberaceae, Poaceae, Eucommiaceae and Aristolochiaceae where plants belonging to the family “Fabaceae” and “ Asteraceae” have appeared to be in the highest. Other families such as Euphorbiaceae, Rosaceae, Lamiaceae and Rosaceae are also found to be repeated. The reason of such high occurrence in genotoxic phenomenon might be their constituents. Pyrroliside alkaloids are widely distributed in plants from Asteraceae, Fabaceae and Borage (Boraginaceae) families (Durnev and Lapitskaia 2013) are found to have genotoxic compounds. Allyl thiocyanate is contained in the amount of 50–100 ppm from Brassicacae family (Durnev and Lapitskaia 2013) which is observed to bear mutagenic properties at the light of the genotoxicity study. Aristolchic acid, a major compound in Aristolochiaceae family has recently been classified in the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a human carcinogen (Durnev and Lapitskaia 2013). Other compounds such as propenyl benzene, hydrazine, antheraquinones and their derivatives, allyl isothiocyanates and flavonoides as found in Ashitaba chalcone, coumarines and psoralens have already been tested and proven to possess genotoxicity inducing property. Genotoxicity study depends on the mode of extract being used. For example, Jatropha gossypiifolia has found to be genotoxic at other extracts except aqueous. Cecropia pachystachyca and Pterocaulon polystachycum showed genotoxicity only to mice brain and kidney tissues, respectively. Even each part of a plant might not bear similar genotoxic phenomenon, such as in Opuntia ficus-indica, where only the fruit and seed extracts were found to be genotoxic, whereas other parts were found to be negative of this aspect.
Most of the plants such as Euphoria hirta, Glycyrrhiza glabra, Cratageus oxycantha, Vochysia divergens, Smallenthus sonchifolius, Ziziphora clinopodioides have been found to be exerting dose dependent genotoxicity. Also, Kalanchoe pinnata and K. lacinata showed weak genotoxic effect whereas Cymbopogon khasianus shows moderate genotoxic effects.
It is a habitual aspect of people to believe in the naturally obtained products more than that of synthesized ones. But while setting to this aspect, its inherent toxicological properties tend to be ignored. Several workers have already done many experiments with the natural compounds obtained from plants yet many are still unknown. Many regular culinary ingredients have found to contain toxic compounds after experimentation. Regular studies have been adding new evidences on this aspect. Such as saponins, which were not mentioned among geno-toxicants before, are considered to be responsible in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell cultures for the mutagenic activity of water and the organic extracts of the cortex of the medicinal plant Nauclea (Rubiaceae) (Liu et al. 2000). There are many controversies related to the extract used. An aqueous extract of nine medicinal plants known in natural Korean medicine under the name “Gumiganghwaltang” demonstrated genotoxicity in the Ames test and Chinese hamster lung cell culture (CHL cells) but was inactive for the micronuclei count in polychromatophylic mice erythrocytes (Shin et al. 2011). The study of 19 different extracts of 11 plants (Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh., Ecballium elaterium L., Momordica charantia L., Plantago major L., Urtica dioica L., Viscum album L., Salvia triloba, Euphorbia rigida, Stachys lavandulifolia, Acteoside and Abies nordmannia) that are considered as phyto-immunomodulators did not reveal a mutagenic effect using the strains TA98 and TA100 in the Ames test but indicated clear DNA damaging action toward lymphocytes of human peripheral blood in vitro (Durnev and Lapitskaia 2013). Even in case of in vitro and in vivo studies, some extracts that induce genotoxicity in vitro show negative result in vivo. According to Durnev and Lapitskaia (2013), in vivo studies suffer from a number of drawbacks due to the imperfection of their design from the point of view of the evaluation of real genotoxic risks for humans. First of all, the expressed discrepancy of the compound dosage used in an experiment and that that is actually consumed by a person is relevant. The second issue is the discordance of the regimes of introducing a compound into organism.
There might be many controversies and uncertainty lying down behind each experiment, but each toxicological experiment brings the safety of humans a step closer. Therefore, identifying the geno-toxicants and then taking the required measures for their sanitation is always necessary before switching onto any herbal products.
Availability of data and materials
All data generated during this study have been mentioned in this article.
Bacterial reverse mutation assay
Allium cepa Test
Chromosomal aberration assay
Mouse lymphoma tk assay
Lysogenic induction assay
Abubakar AR, Haque M (2020) Preparation of medicinal plants: basic extraction and fractionation procedures for experimental purposes. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 12(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_175_19
Acesio NO, Carrijo GS, Batista TH, Damasceno JL, Côrrea MB, Tozatti MG, Cunha WR, Tavares DC (2017) Assessment of the antioxidant, cytotoxic, and genotoxic potential of the Annona muricata leaves and their influence on genomic stability. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A 80(23–24):1290–1300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2017.1377653
Ahmadi A, Gandomi H, Derakhshande A, Misaghi A, Noori N (2021) Phytochemical composition and in vitro safety evaluation of Ziziphora clinopodioides Lam. ethanolic extract: cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and mutagenicity assessment. J Ethnopharmacol 266:113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2020.113428
Akhtar MF, Saleem A, Sharif A, Akhtar B, Nasim MB, Peerzada S, Raza M, Ija H, Ahmed S, Shabbir M, Ali S, Akbar Z, Ul Hassan SS (2016) Genotoxic and cytotoxic action potential of Terminalia citrina, a medicinal plant of ethnopharmacological significance. EXCLI J 15:589–598. https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2016-551
Almeida PM, Araủjo SS, Santos IRMR, Marin-Morales MA, Benko-Iseppon AM, Santos AV, Randau KP, Braslleiro-Vidal AC (2016) Genotoxic potential of leaf extracts of Jatropha gossypiifolia L. Genet Mol Res 15(1):gmr.15017415. https://doi.org/10.4238/gmr.15017415
Ananthi R, Chandra N, Santhia ST, Ramesh A (2010) Genotoxic and antigenotoxic effects of Hemidesmus indicus R. Br. root extract in cultured lymphocytes. J Ethnopharmacol 127:558–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2009.10.034
Asare GA, Bugyei K, Sittie A, Yahaya ES, Gyan B, Adjei S, Addy P, du Wire EK, Nyarko AK (2012) Genotoxicity, cytotoxicity and toxicological evaluation of whole plant extracts of the medicinal plant Phyllanthus niruri (Phyllanthaceae). Genet Mol Res 11(1):100–111. https://doi.org/10.4238/2012.January.13.3
Asita AO, Magama S, Moahloli TM, Baholo S (2021) Evaluation of extracts of wild Cannabis sativa L. for genotoxicity and phytochemical composition. Caryologia 74(1):135–150
Ayubi Z, Ayatollahi-Mousavi SA, Jafari AA, Jafari H, Panddeh M (2021) Using Comet assay for genotoxic evaluation of Zataria multiflora Boiss., an Iranian endemic plant. J Food Qual Hazards Control 8:45–49. https://doi.org/10.18502/jfqhc.8.1.5463
Beeran AA, Udupa N, Maliyakkal N (2020) The dichloromethane fraction of Vernonia cinerea impart pro-apoptotic, genotoxic, cell cycle arrest, and drug efflux inhibitory effects on human adenocarcinoma cells. Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov 15(3):239–256. https://doi.org/10.2174/1574892815999200824122723
Benigni R, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O, Battistelli CL, Crettaz P (2012) The new ISSMIC database on in vivo micronucleus and its role in assessing genotoxicity testing strategies. Mutagenesis 27:87–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/ger064
Boas GRV, Lemos JMR, de Oliveira MW, dos Santos RC, da Silveira APS, Bacha FB, Ito CNA, Cornelius EB, Lima FB, Rodrigues AMS, Costa NB, Bittencourt FF, de Lima FF, Paes MM, Gubert P, Oesterreich SA (2019) Preclinical safety evaluation of the aqueous extract from Mangifera indica Linn. (Anacardiaceae): genotoxic, clastogenic and cytotoxic assessment in experimental models of genotoxicity in rats to predict potential human risks. J Ethnopharmacol 243:112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2019.112086
Boiera JM, Fenner R, Betti AH, Provensi G, de A. Lacerda L, Barbosa PR, Gonzảlez FHD, Corrệa AMR, Driemeier D, Dall’Alba MP, Pedroso AP, Gosmann G, da Silva J, Rates SMK (2010) Toxicity and genotoxicity evaluation of Passiflora alata Curtis (Passifloraceae). J Ethnopharmacol 128(2):526–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2009.09.037
Boldbaatar D, El-Seedi HR, Findakly M, Jabri S, Javzan B, Choidash B, Goransson U, Hellman B (2014) Antigenotoxic and antioxidant effects of the Mongolian medicinal plant Leptopyrum fumarioides (L): An in vitro study. J Ethnopharmacol 155(1):599–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2014.06.005
Chan K (2003) Some aspects of toxic contaminants in herbal medicines. Chemosphere 52:1361–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00471-5
Chen-Chen L, Sena MA (2002) Toxic and mutagenic activity of copaíba oil (Copaifera langsdorfii) in mice. Revista Brasileira De Plantas Medicinais 5:37–40
Chichioco-Hernandez C, Wudarski J, Gevaert L, Verschaeve L (2011) Evaluation of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of some Philippine medicinal plants. Pharmacogn Mag 7(26):171–175. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1296.80683
Costa PM, Ferreira HD, Ferri PH, Guillo LA, Chen-Chen L (2018) Modulating action of the genotoxicity of Solanum lycocarpum St. Hil. in cyclophosphamide-induced micronuclei. J Neotrop Biol 2(1):43–48
Da Silva J, De Freitas TRO, Heuser V, Marinho JR, Bittencourt F, Cerski CTS, Kliemann LM, Erdtmann B (2000) Effects of chronic exposure to coal in wild rodents (Ctenomys torquatus) evaluated by multiple methods and tissues. Mutat Res 470(1):39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5718(00)00094-2
de Medeiros IU, de Medeiros RA, Bortolin RH, de Queiroz RM, Silbiger VN, Pflugmacher S, Schwarz A (2019) Genotoxicity and pharmacokinetic characterization of Cereus jamacaru ethanolic extract in rats. Biosci Rep 39(1):BSR20180672. https://doi.org/10.1042/BSR20180672
de Moura DF, Rocha TA, Barros D de M, da Silva MM, de Lira MA da C, Dos Santos Souza TG, da Silva CJA, de Aguiar Júnior FCA, Chagas CA, da Silva Santos NP, de Souza IA, Araújo RM, Ximenes RM, Martins RD, da Silva MV (2020) Evaluation of the cytotoxicity, oral toxicity, genotoxicity, and mutagenicity of the latex extracted from Himatanthus drasticus (Mart.) Plumel (Apocynaceae). J Ethnopharmacol 253:112567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2020.112567
de Oliveira AM, Nascimento MF do, Ferreira MRA, Moura DF de, Souza TGDS, Silva GC da, Ramos H da S, Paiva, PMG, Medeiros PL de, Silva TG da, Soares LAL, Chagas CA, Souza IA, de Napoleão TH (2016) Evaluation of acute toxicity, genotoxicity and inhibitory effect on acute inflammation of an ethanol extract of Morus alba L. (Moraceae) in mice. J Ethnopharmacol 194:162–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2016.09.004
de Oliveira PF, Mendes SA, Acésio NO, Filho LCK, Pimenta LP, Siqueira KA, Soares MA, Januário AH, Tavares DC (2018) Genotoxic and chemopreventive effects of Vochysia divergens leaves (Pantanal, Brazil). Evid Based Complement Altern Medi 2018:e6596142. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6596142
de Quadros APO, Mazzeo DEC, Marin-Morales MA, Perazzo FF, Rosa PCP, Maistro EL (2017) Fruit extract of the medicinal plant Crataegus oxyacantha exerts genotoxic and mutagenic effects in cultured cells. J Toxicol Environ Health A 80(3):160–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2016.1272517
de Souza LB, Gindri AL, Fortes TA, Kubiça TF, Enderle J, Roehrs R, Silva SME, Manfredini V, Denardin ELG (2020) Phytochemical analysis, antioxidant activity, antimicrobial activity, and cytotoxicity of Chaptalia nutans leaves. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci 2020:3260745. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3260745
Dearfield KL, Auletta AE, Cimino MC, Moore MM (1991) Considerations in the U.S. Environmental protection Agency’s testing approach for mutagenicity. Mutat Res 258(3):259–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1110(91)90012-K
Demma J, El-Seedi H, Engidawork E, Aboye TL, Göransson U, Hellman B (2013) An in vitro study on the DNA damaging effects of phytochemicals partially isolated from an extract of Glinus lotoides. Phytother Res 27(4):507–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.4744
Dey A, Hazra AK, Mukherjee A, Nandy S, Pandey DK (2021) Chemotaxonomy of the ethnic antidote Aristolochia indica for aristolochic acid content: Implications of anti-phospholipase activity and genotoxicity study. J Ethnopharmacol 266:113416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2020.113416
Discon SM, Samuthirapandi M, Govindaraju A, Kasi PD (2015) Evaluation of in vitro and in vivo safety profile of the Indian traditional medicinal plant Grewia tiliaefolia. Regul Toxicol Phamacol 73(1):241–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.011
dos Santos FJB, Moura DJ, Pẻres VF, de Moura Sperotto AR, Caramao EB, de Carvalho Melo Cavalcante AA, Saffi J (2012) Genotoxic and mutagenic properties of Bauhinia platypetala extract, a traditional Brazilian medicinal plant. J Ethnopharmacol 144(3):474–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2012.08.047
dos Santos VC, Longo TB, Garcia ALH, Richter MF, Guecheva TN, Henriques JAP, Ferraz A, de BF, Picada JN (2013) Evaluation of the mutagenicity and genotoxicity of Arrabidaea chica Verlot (Bignoneaceae), an Amazon plant with medicinal properties. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A 76(6):381–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2012.761947
Durnev D, Lapitskaia AS (2013) The genotoxicology of plant compounds. Russ J Genet Appl Res 3:388–398. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079059713050031
Dusinka M, Runden-Pran E, Correira C, Saunders M (2012) Critical evaluation of toxicity tests. In: Fadeel B, Pietroiusti A, Shvedova AA (eds) Adverse effects of engineered nanomaterials. Elsevier, New York, pp 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386940-1.00004-0
Eck-Varanka B, Kovảts N, Hubai K, Paulovits G, Ferincz A, Horvảth E (2015) Genotoxic effect of Lythrum salicaria extract determined by the mussel micronucleus test. Acta Biol Hung 66(4):460–463. https://doi.org/10.1556/018.66.2015.4.10
Gogoi R, Loying R, Sarma N, Begum T, Pandey SK, Lal M (2020) Comparative analysis of in-vitro biological activities of methyl eugenol rich Cymbopogon khasianus Hack., leaf essential oil with pure methyl eugenol compound. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 21(10):927–938. https://doi.org/10.2174/1389201021666200217113921
Hartmann A, Speit G (1997) The contribution of cytotoxicity to DNA-effects in the single cell gel test (comet assay). Toxicol Lett 90(2–3):183–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4274(96)03847-7
Ishikawa RB, Leitẵo MM, Kassuya RM, Macorini LF, Moreira FMF, Cardoso CAL, Coelho RG, Pott A, Gelfuso GM, Croda J, Oliveira RJ, Kassuya CAL (2017) Anti-inflammatory, antimycobacterial and genotoxic evaluation of Doliocarpus dentatus. J Ethnopharmacol 204:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2017.04.004
Jeong MH, Seong NW, Lee JY, Kim YJ, Shin NR, Kim JC (2018a) In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the genotoxicity of Eriobotrya japonica leaf extract. Pharmacol 99:238–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.09.029
Jeong MH, Seong NW, Lee JY, Kim YJ, Shin NR, Kim JC (2018b) In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the genotoxicity of Eriobotrya japonica leaf extract. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 99:238–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.09.029
Kahaliw W, Hellman B, Engidawork E (2018) Genotoxicity study of Ethiopian medicinal plant extracts on HepG2 cells. BMC Complement Altern Med 18(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-017-2056-x
Kang HS, Kwon JY, Lee JK, Seo YR (2013) Recent advances in in vivo genotoxicity testing: Prediction of carcinogenic potential using Comet and micronucleus assay in animal models. J Cancer Prev 18(4):277–288. https://doi.org/10.15430/jcp.2013.18.4.277
Kon-Young J, Kim KM, Oh JJ, Kim JW, Lee WJ, Cho H, Lee HK, Lee JY, Chae S (2020) Assessment of the 4-week repeated-dose oral toxicity and genotoxicity of GHX02. J Appl Toxicol 40(2):270–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3902
Kulkarni P, Paul R, Ganesh N (2010) In vitro evaluation of genotoxicity of Avocado (Persea americana) fruit and leaf extracts in human peripheral lymphocytes. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev 28(3):172–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/10590501.2010.504979
Lazaro DC, Lorfish YL, Vazquez AIF, Hate AD, Gonzalez JE, Sanchez SL, Delgado NG (2010) Genotoxic assessment of aqueous extract of Rhizophora mengle L. (mangle rojo) by spermatozoa head assay. Rev Cub Plants Med 15(1):18–26
Liu W, Di Giorgio C, Lamidi M, Elias R, Ollivier E, De Mẻo MP (2000) Genotoxic and clastogenic activity of saponins extracted from Nauclea bark as assessed by the micronucleus and the comet assays in Chinese hamster ovary cells. J Ethnopharmacol 137(1):176–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2011.05.005
Luo X, Wu J, Li Z, Jin W, Zhang F, Sun H, Shi Y (2020) Safety evaluation of Eucommia ulmoides extract. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 118:104811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104811
Madikizela B, McGaw LJ (2017) Pittosporum viridiflorum Sims (Pittosporaceae): a review on a useful medicinal plant native to South Africa and tropical Africa. J Ethnopharmacol 205:217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2017.05.005
Maistro EL, Terrazzas PM, Perazzo FF, Gaiva IODM, Sawaya ACHF, Rosa PCP (2019) Salix alba (white willow) medicinal plant presents genotoxic effects in human cultured leukocytes. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A 82(23–24):1223–1234. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2019.1711476
Maron DM, Ames BN (1983) Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat Res 113(3–4):173–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1161(83)90010-9
Maronpot RR (2015) Toxicological assessment of Ashitaba Chalcone. Food Chem Toxicol 77:111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2014.12.021
Marques DM, de Medeiros SR, Dias C da S, Barbosa-Filho JM, Agnez-Lima LF (2003) Evaluation of the mutagenic potential of Yangambin and of the hydroalcoholic extract of Ocotea duckei by the Ames test. Mutat Res 536:117–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1383-5718(03)00040-8
Melo-Reis PR, Bezerra LSA, Vale M, Canhete RFR, Chen-Chen L (2011) Assessment of the mutagenic and antimutagenic activity of Synadenium umbellatum Pax latex by micronucleus test in mice. Braz J Biol 71:169–174. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1519-69842011000100024
Mendonca ED, da Silva J, dos Santos MS, Carvalho P, Papke DKM, Ortmann CF, Picada JN, Reginatto FH, Ferraz ABF (2016) Genotoxic, mutagenic and antigenotoxic effects of Cecropia pachystachya Trécul aqueous extract using in vivo and in vitro assays. J Ethnopharmacol 193:214–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2016.07.046
Mortelmans K, Zeiger E (2000) The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutat Res 455(1–2):29–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0027-5107(00)00064-6
Muhammad H, Gomes-Carneiro MR, Poca KS, De-Oliveira ACAX, Afzan A, Sulaiman SA, Ismail Z, Paumagartten FJR (2011) Evaluation of the genotoxicity of Orthosiphon stamineus aqueous extract. J Ethnopharmacol 133(2):647–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2010.10.055
Nair JJ, Van Staden J (2014) Traditional usage, phytochemistry and pharmacology of the South African medicinal plant Boophone disticha (L.f.) Herb (Amaryllidaceae). J Ethnopharmacol 151(1):12–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2013.10.053
Nazari S, Rameshrad M, Hosseinzadeh H (2017) Toxicological effects of Glycyrrhiza glabra (Licorice): a review. Phytother Res 31(11):1635–1650. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.5893
Ng CT, Li JJ, Bay BH, Yung LYL (2010) Current studies into the genotoxic effects of nanomaterials. J Nucl Acids 2010:947859. https://doi.org/10.4061/2010/947859
Njoya EM, Moundipa PF, Stopper H (2014) In vitro genotoxic and mutagenic evaluation of the aqueous extract of Codiaeum variegatum and its amoebicidal sub-fraction. J Ethnopharmacol 155(1):823–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2014.06.038
Pandey MM, Rastogi S, Rawat AKS (2013) Indian traditional Ayurvedic system of system of medicine and nutritional supplement. J Evid Based Complement Altern Med 2013:376327. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/376327
Paw M, Gogoi R, Sarma N, Pandey SK, Borah A, Begum T, Lal M (2020) Study of anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, genotoxicity, and antimicrobial activities and analysis of different constituents found in rhizome essential oil of Curcuma caesia Roxb., collected from North East India. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 21(5):403–413. https://doi.org/10.2174/1389201020666191118121609
Ping KY, Darah I, Yusuf UK, Yeng C, Sasidharan S (2012) Genotoxicity of Euphorbia hirta: An Allium cepa Assay. Molecules 17:7782–7791. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules17077782
Quadros APOD, Almeida LM, Petreanu M, Niero R, Rosa PCP, Sawaya ACHFS, Mantovani MS, Gaivao IODM, Maistro EL (2020) Risk assessment via genotoxicity, metabolism, apoptosis, and cell growth effects in a HepG2/C3A cell line upon treatment with Rubus rosifolius (Rosaceae) leaves extract. J Toxicol Environ Health A 83(13–14):495–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2020.1779888
Raymundo TM, Favilla M, Niero R, Andrade SF, Maistro EL (2012) Genotoxicity of the medicinal plant Maytenus robusta in mammalian cells in vivo. Genet Mol Res 11(3):2847–2854. https://doi.org/10.4238/2012.August.24.9
Regner GG, Gianesini J, Von Borowski RG, Silveira F, Semedo JG, Ferraz Ad BF, Wiillan E, Poser V, Allgayer M, Picada J, Pereira P (2011) Toxicological evaluation of Pterocaulon polystachyum extract: A medicinal plant with antifungal activity. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 31(1):242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2010.11.003
Ribeiro R de CL, Botelho ELL, Donadel G, Ames ML, Nunes B, Tramontini S, Soares AA, Alberton O, Jacomassi E, Gasparotto Junior A (2021) Genotoxicity study of Vitex megapotamica (Spreng.) Moldenke. J Med Food 24(7):762–765. https://doi.org/10.1089/jmf.2020.0159
Rocha TA, de Moura DF, da Silva MM, dos Santos ST, da Lira MA, de Mello BD, da Silva AG, Ximenes RM, da Falcao EP, Chagas CA, Jủnior FC, dos Santos NP, da Silva MV, dos Correira MT (2019) Evaluation of cytotoxic potential, oral toxicity, genotoxicity, and mutagenicity of organic extracts of Pityrocarpa moniliformis. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A 82(3):216–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2019.1576563
Saravanan V, Murugan SS, Kumaravel TS (2020) Genotoxicity studies with an ethanolic extract of Kalanchoe pinnata leaves. Mutat Res 2020:856–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2020.503229
Sasaki YF, Kawaguchi S, Kamaya A, Ohshita M, Kabasawa K, Iwama K, Taniguchi K, Tsuda S (2002) The comet assay with 8 mouse organs: results with 39 currently used food additives. Mutat Res 519(1–2):103–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5718(02)00128-6
Sassi A, Bouhlel I, Mustapha N, Bzeouich IM, Chaabane F, Ghedira K, Ghedira LC (2016) Assessment in vitro of the genotoxicity, antigenotoxicity and antioxidant of Ceratonia siliqua L. extracts in murine leukaemia cells L1210 by comet assay. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 77:117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.02.009
Sharif A, Akhtar MF, Akhtar B, Saleem A, Manan M, Shabbir M, Ashraf M, Peerzada S, Ahmed S, Raza M (2017) Genotoxic and cytotoxic potential of whole plant extracts of Kalanchoe laciniata by Ames and MTT assay. EXCLI J 16:593–601. https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2016-748
Shin IS, Seo CS, Ha HK, Lee MY, Huang DS, Huh JI, Shin HK (2011) Genotoxicity assessment of Pyungwi-san (pws), a traditional herbal prescription. J Ethnopharmacol 133(2):696–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2010.10.050
Shin KY, Won BY, Ha HJ, Yun YS, Lee HG (2015) Genotoxicity studies on the root extract of Polygala tenuifolia Willdenow. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 71(3):365–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.01.016
Singh NP, McCoy MT, Tice RR, Schneider EL (1988) A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp Cell Res 175:184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4827(88)90265-0
Singh S, Chattopadhyay P, Borthakur SK, Police Goudra R (2018) Safety profile investigations of Meyna spinosa (Roxb.) and Oroxylum indicum (Linn.) extracts collected from Northeast India. Pharmacogn Mag 13(4):S762–S768. https://doi.org/10.4103/pm.pm_62_15
Soleimani V, Delghandi PS, Moallem SA, Karimi G (2019) Safety and toxicity of Silymarin, the major constituent of milk thistle extract: an updated review. Phytother Res 33(6):1627–1638. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.6361
Soumaya KJ, Dhekra M, Fadwa C, Zied G, Ilef L, Kamel G, Leila CG (2013) Pharmacological, antioxidant, genotoxic studies and modulation of rat splenocyte functions by Cyperus rotundus extracts. BMC Complement Altern Med 13(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-13-28
Sponchiado G, Adam ML, Soley BDS, Sampayo C (2016) Quantitative genotoxic assays for analysis of medicinal plants: a systematic review. J Ethnopharmacol 278:289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2015.10.026
Szokalo RAM, Redko F, Ulloa J, Flor S, Tulino MS, Muschietti L, Carballo MA (2020) Toxicogenetic evaluation of Smallanthus sonchifolius (yacon) as a herbal medicine. J Ethnopharmacol 257:112854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2020.112854
Tavares GDB, Aiub CAF, Felzenszwalb I, Dantas EKC, Araújo-Lima CF, Junior CLS (2021) In vitro biochemical characterization and genotoxicity assessment of Sapindus saponaria seed extract. J Ethnopharmacol 276:114170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2021.114170
Tice RR, Agurell E, Anderson D, Burlinson B, Hartmann A, Kobayashi H, Miyamae Y, Rojas E, Ryu JC, Sasaki YF (2000) Single cell gel/comet assay: guidelines for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology testing. Environ Mol Mutagen 35:206–221
Tsafantakis N, Katsanou ES, Kyriakopoulou K, Psarou EC, Raptaki I, Skaltsounis AL, Audebert M, Machera KA, Fokialakis N (2019) Comparative UHPLC-HRMS profiling, toxicological assessment, and protection against H2O2-induced genotoxicity of different parts of Opuntia ficus indica. J Med Food 22(12):1280–1293. https://doi.org/10.1089/jmf.2019.0032
Tsuboy MS, Marcarini JC, Ferreira DT, Ferraz ER, Chequer FMD, de Oliveira DP, Ribeiro LR, Mantovani MS (2010) Evaluation of extracts from Coccoloba mollis using the Salmonella/microsome system and in vivo tests. Gen Mol Biol 33(3):542–548. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-47572010005000062
Vidal LS, Alves AM, Kuster RM, Lage C, Leitão AC (2010) Genotoxicity and mutagenicity of Echinodorus macrophyllus (chapéu-de-couro) extracts. Gen Mol Biol 33(3):549–557. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-47572010005000060
Waters MD, Stack HF, Jackson MA (1999) Genetic toxicological data in the evaluation of potential human environmental carcinogens. Mutat Res 437(1):21–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5742(99)00037-X
Yonekubo BT, Alves H de MC, de Souza Marques E, Perazzo FF, Rosa PCP, Gaivão IO de M, Maistro EL (2018) The genotoxic effects of fruit extract of Crataegus oxyacantha (hawthorn) in mice. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A 81(19):974–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2018.1503982
Zhao YL, Su M, Shang JH, Wang X, Bao GL, Ma J, Sun QD, Yuan F, Wang JK, Luo XD (2020) Genotoxicity and safety pharmacology studies of indole alkaloids extract from leaves of Alstonia scholaris (L.) R. Br. Nat Prod Bioprospect 10(3):119–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13659-020-00242-4
The authors thank the Head and faculty at the Department of Zoology, B. Borooah College for approving this study.
The study did not receive any funding from agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication
All the authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Bardoloi, A., Soren, A.D. Genotoxicity induced by medicinal plants. Bull Natl Res Cent 46, 119 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-022-00803-2
- Ames test
- Comet assay
- Medicinal plants
- Micronucleus assay