Radiance Research AcademyInternational Journal of Current Research and Review2231-21960975-52411812EnglishN2026June30Healthcare Pharmacological Evaluation of Bignonia gracilis Leaf Extract for Anti-Ulcer Activity in an Ethanol-Induced Ulcer Model     English0108Abhishek PatelEnglish Garima PandeyEnglish Saket Singh ChandelEnglish Background: Peptic ulcer disease remains a major global health concern, with modern lifestyles and widespread NSAID use contributing to its continued prevalence. Medicinal plants have garnered increasing attention as alternative therapeutic ap proaches due to their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and cytoprotective properties. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the anti-ulcer activity of Bignonia gracilis leaf extract using an ethanol-induced gastric ulcer model in Wistar albino rats. Methods: Leaves of Bignonia gracilis were collected, authenticated, dried, and extracted using ethanol via Soxhlet extraction. Phytochemical screening was performed using standard qualitative tests. Acute oral toxicity was assessed following OECD Guideline 423. Anti-ulcer activity was evaluated in ethanol-induced gastric ulcer model in Wistar rats (n=6 per group) at doses of 200 mg/kg and 400 mg/kg, with Omeprazole (20 mg/kg) as standard. Ulcer index, gastric secretion parameters, biochemical markers (MDA, SOD, CAT, GSH, mucin, total protein), and histopathological examination were assessed. Results: Phytochemical screening revealed the presence of alkaloids, flavonoids, tannins, saponins, glycosides, phenolic com pounds, and terpenoids. The extract was found safe up to 2000 mg/kg with no mortality or toxicity signs. The extract significantly (pEnglishBignonia gracilis; Anti-ulcer activity; Ethanol-induced ulcer; Gastroprotective; Phytochemical screening; Antioxidanthttp://ijcrr.com/abstract.php?article_id=4913http://ijcrr.com/article_html.php?did=4913 1. Al-Mamun MA, Rahman MA, Ferdous A. Evaluation of medicinal plants for gastroprotective activity in ethanol-induced gastric ulcer models. J Ethnopharmacol. 2016;182:28-35. 2. Baliga MS, Rao S, Rai MP. Phytochemicals with anti-ulcer and cytoprotective potentials: A critical review. Phytother Res. 2019;33(4):1030-1045. 3. Borrelli F, Izzo AA. The plant kingdom as a source of anti-ulcer remedies. Phytother Res. 2000;14(8):581-591. 4. Fernandes LC, Vieira CP, Santos CA. Anti-inflammatory and wound healing effects of Bignoniaceae plants. J Med Plants Res. 2020;14(5):215-222. 5. Gupta S, Tiwari R. Anti-inflammatory and gastroprotective ac tivities of plant-derived triterpenoids. J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2017;8(3):165-172. 6. Hossain MA, Rahman SM. Protective effects of phenolic acids against ethanol-induced gastric mucosal damage. Biomed Phar macother. 2015;72:78-85. 7. Jain S, Pandey G. Anti-ulcer activity of flavonoid-rich plant extracts: A comparative study. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2018;10(9):23-29. 8. Jagetia GC, Rajanikant GK, Rao U. Role of natural antioxi dants in reducing oxidative gastric injury. J Clin Biochem Nutr. 2012;50(1):1-7. 9. Kumar S, Singh A. Phenolic compounds and their role in ethanol induced gastric protection. J Appl Pharm Sci. 2020;10(6):124-130. 10. Mehta K, Patel B, Shah D. Antioxidant capacity of flavo noids in ethanol-induced ulcers. World J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2017;6(12):102-110. 11. Martins DT, Silva MG, Silva BP. Gastroprotective compounds isolated from tropical medicinal plants. J Nat Remedies. 2018;18(2):45-53. 12. Mishra RN, Verma RK, Singh R. Evaluation of anti-ulcer activ ity of natural antioxidants in rodent models. Indian J Pharmacol. 2015;47(1):65-72. 13. Nirmal SA, Jadhav RS, Patil AN. Anti-ulcer and antioxi dant properties of Bignoniaceae family plants. Pharm Biol. 2012;50(7):850-855. 14. Oliveira DF, Ribeiro SF, Rocha LD. Ethnomedicinal uses and phytochemical potential of Bignoniaceae species in South America. Rev Bras Plantas Med. 2016;18(1):122-130. 15. Patel SS, Verma NK. Cytoprotective and anti-secretory actions of herbal leaf extracts. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2014;7(5):380 385. 16. Pratap CR, Kumar R, Dey S. Methanolic extracts of medici nal leaves exhibiting gastroprotective activity. J Herb Med. 2013;3(4):195-202. 17. Raj P, Dhanabal SP. Histopathological evaluation of anti-ulcer medicinal plants. Indian J Exp Biol. 2016;54(4):230-236. 18. Rajesh H, Rao N, Praveen A. Ethanol-induced gastric ulcer: Mechanisms and protective agents. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2009;53(4):332-345

Radiance Research AcademyInternational Journal of Current Research and Review2231-21960975-52411812EnglishN2026June30Healthcare In vitro Evaluation of the Antioxidant and Anti-inflammatory Potential of Croton zambesicus and Murraya koenigii Root Extracts     English0916Brijesh KumarEnglish Jitendra BanweerEnglish Abhishek ShrivastavaEnglish Bhanu Prakash VermaEnglish Background: The increasing prevalence of nephrotoxicity and inflammation-related disorders underscores the need for safe, effective, and affordable therapeutic alternatives. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of Croton zambesicus and Murraya koenigii root extracts through in vitro assays, validating their traditional use and exploring their phytopharmacological relevance. Methods: Following maceration with ethanol and methanol, the extracts were subjected to phytochemical profiling, revealing the presence of flavonoids, phenolics, terpenoids, alkaloids, and tannins. Quantitative analyses were performed for total phenolic content (TPC) and total flavonoid content (TFC). Antioxidant activity was assessed using the DPPH radical scavenging assay, while anti-inflammatory potential was evaluated through protein denaturation and HRBC membrane stabilization assays. Results: Quantitative analyses showed higher total phenolic content in Croton zambesicus (142.3 ± 4.2 mg GAE/g) and flavo noid content in Murraya koenigii (96.4 ± 2.9 mg QE/g). In the DPPH radical scavenging assay, both extracts exhibited strong antioxidant activity in a concentration-dependent manner. Croton zambesicus showed 80.74% inhibition and IC50 of 42.31 µg/ mL, while Murraya koenigii showed 75.36% inhibition with IC50 of 48.76 µg/mL. Ascorbic acid was used as the standard. For anti-inflammatory assessment, at 100 µg/mL, Croton zambesicus showed 76.34% inhibition of protein denaturation and 74.87% membrane protection; Murraya koenigii showed 71.85% and 70.14%, respectively. Diclofenac served as the reference standard. Conclusion: These findings confirm the significant in vitro antioxidant and anti-inflammatory potential of both extracts. The cor relation with phytochemical constituents highlights their therapeutic promise in oxidative and inflammation-associated conditions such as nephrotoxicity. Further studies involving compound isolation and in vivo validation are warranted EnglishCroton zambesicus, Murraya koenigii, Antioxidant activity, Anti-inflammatory assay, Phytochemical profiling, Extracthttp://ijcrr.com/abstract.php?article_id=4914http://ijcrr.com/article_html.php?did=4914 1. Ogunlana OO, Ogunlana OE, Ogunlana OO, Akinloye AO, Adeyemi OO, Alagbonsi IA, Olayemi FO. Anti-oxidative and cholinesterase inhibitory effects of leaf extracts of Croton gratis simus and Croton zambesicus. J Ethnopharmacol. 2018;219:1 10. 2. Saini R, Sharma S, Saini S. Medicinal profile, phytochemistry, and pharmacological activities of Murraya koenigii: A review. J Ethnopharmacol. 2020;256:112769. 3. Waterhouse AL. Determination of total phenolics. In: Current Protocols in Food Analytical Chemistry. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2002. 4. Chang C, Yang M, Wen H, Chern J. Estimation of total flavonoid content in propolis by two complementary colorimetric meth ods. J Food Drug Anal. 2002;10(3):178-182. 5. Brand-Williams W, Cuvelier ME, Berset C. Use of a free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 1995;28(1):25-30. 6. Mizushima Y, Kobayashi M. Interaction of anti-inflammatory drugs with serum proteins, especially with some biologically ac tive proteins. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1968;20(3):169-173. 7. Shinde UA, Phadke AS, Nair AM, Mungantiwar AA, Dikshit VJ, Saraf MN. Membrane stabilizing activity—a possible mech anism of action for the anti-inflammatory activity of Cedrus deodara wood oil. Fitoterapia. 1999;70(3):251-257. 8. Sofowora A. Medicinal Plants and Traditional Medicine in Af rica. 2nd ed. Ibadan, Nigeria: Spectrum Books Ltd; 1993. 9. Harborne JB. Phytochemical Methods: A Guide to Modern Tech niques of Plant Analysis. 3rd ed. London: Chapman and Hall; 1998. 10. Trease GE, Evans WC. Pharmacognosy. 15th ed. London: Saun ders; 2002. 11. Singleton VL, Rossi JA. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Vitic. 1965;16(3):144-158. 12. Zhishen J, Mengcheng T, Jianming W. The determination of flavonoid contents in mulberry and their scavenging effects on superoxide radicals. Food Chem. 1999;64(4):555-559. 13. Blois MS. Antioxidant determinations by the use of a stable free radical. Nature. 1958;181(4617):1199-1200. 14. Oyedapo OO, Famurewa AJ. Antiprotease and membrane sta bilizing activities of extracts of Fagara zanthoxyloides, Olax subscorpioidea and Tetrapleura tetraptera. Int J Pharmacogn. 1995;33(1):65-69. 15. Kumar S, Kumar D, Jusha M, Saroha K, Singh N, Vashishta B. Antioxidant and free radical scavenging potential of Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. methanolic fruit extract. Acta Pharm. 2008;58(2):215-220. 16. Gulcin I. Antioxidant activity of food constituents: an over view. Arch Toxicol. 2012;86(3):345-391. 17. Pietta PG. Flavonoids as antioxidants. J Nat Prod. 2000;63(7):1035-1042. 18. Rice-Evans CA, Miller NJ, Paganga G. Structure-antioxidant activity relationships of flavonoids and phenolic acids. Free Radic Biol Med. 1996;20(7):933-956. 19. Kumar S, Pandey AK. Chemistry and biological activi ties of flavonoids: an overview. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013;2013:162750. 20. Middleton E Jr, Kandaswami C, Theoharides TC. The effects of plant flavonoids on mammalian cells: implications for inflamma tion, heart disease, and cancer. Pharmacol Rev. 2000;52(4):673 751. 21. Cushnie TP, Lamb AJ. Antimicrobial activity of flavonoids. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2005;26(5):343-356. 22. Murugan R, Parimelazhagan T. Comparative evaluation of dif ferent extraction methods for antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties from Osbeckia parvifolia Arn.–an in vitro approach. J King Saud Univ Sci. 2014;26(4):267-275. 23. Iwalewa EO, Iwalewa OJ, Adeboye JO. Analgesic, antipyret ic, anti-inflammatory effects of methanol extract of Sida acu ta. Phytother Res. 2003;17(1):75-79. 24. Park YK, Koo MH, Abreu JA, Ikegaki M, Cury JA, Rosalen PL. Antimicrobial activity of propolis on oral microorganisms. Curr Microbiol. 1998;36(1):24-28. 25. Zheng W, Wang SY. Antioxidant activity and phenolic com pounds in selected herbs. J Agric Food Chem. 2001;49(11):5165 5170. 26. Balasundram N, Sundram K, Samman S. Phenolic compounds in plants and agri-industrial by-products: antioxidant activity, occurrence, and potential uses. Food Chem. 2006;99(1):191 203. 27. Gülçin ?. Antioxidant activity of eugenol: a structure–activity relationship study. J Med Food. 2011;14(9):975-985. 28. Kumar A, Ilavarasan R, Jayachandran T, Deecaraman M, Aravindan P, Padmanabhan N, Krishnan MRV. Phytochemi cal investigation and anti-inflammatory activity of Murraya koenigii. J Chem Pharm Res. 2009;1(1):345-349. 29. Upadhyay RK. Plant natural products: Their pharmaceutical po tential against disease and drug resistance. Int J Green Pharm. 2017;11(3):S349-S359. 30. Warrier PK, Nambiar VP, Ramankutty C. Indian Medicinal Plants: A Compendium of 500 Species. Vol 4. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan; 2006. 31. Akinmoladun F, Akinrinlola B, Olaleye T. Comparative phyto chemical screening and antioxidant activity of methanolic leaf extracts of Murraya koenigii and Senna occidentalis. J Pharma cogn Phytother. 2018;10(6):103-110. 32. Patel DK, Kumar R, Prasad SK, Hemalatha S. Pedalium mu rex Linn (Pedaliaceae): ethnobotany, phytochemistry and phar macology. Chin J Integr Med. 2013;19(12):972-979