Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jun 8;21(6):e0349796. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0349796

Biochemical and antidiabetic properties of Elaeocarpus angustifolius Blume: In vitro, In vivo, and In silico insights

Sabina Panth 1,#, Rojina Devkota 1,#, Amar Waiba 1,#, Tika Ram Lamichhane 2,#, Prajwal Acharya 1, Begum Rokeya 3, Amit Jaisi 4, Achyut Adhikari 1,*
Editor: Jorddy Neves Cruz5
PMCID: PMC13245756  PMID: 42258468

Abstract

Diabetes poses an utmost threat to human health; significant progress in the discovery of antidiabetic drugs has been made, but their side effects cannot be ignored. As a plant-based alternative, this study explored the pharmacological potential of Elaeocarpus angustifolius Blume (Rudraksha), emphasizing its antioxidant and antidiabetic activities, supported by in silico analysis. Phytochemical screening of the methanol bark extract confirmed the presence of flavonoids, alkaloids, carbohydrates, glycosides, terpenoids, tannins, and phenols. The extract exhibited high total phenolic and flavonoid contents (182.73 ± 0.001 mg GAE/g and 48.78 ± 0.06 mg QE/g, respectively). The LC–MS analysis of the ethyl acetate fraction identified thirteen phytoconstituents, including phenolic acids, flavonoids, and tannins. The ethyl acetate fraction demonstrated significant antioxidant activity (IC₅₀ = 1.47 ± 0.37 µg/mL), outperforming quercetin (IC₅₀ = 4.87 ± 0.16 µg/mL). Enzyme inhibition assays revealed methanol extract has strong α-glucosidase (IC₅₀ = 0.79 ± 0.13 µg/mL) and α-amylase (IC₅₀ = 3.48 ± 0.00 µg/mL) inhibitory effects, comparable to acarbose (IC₅₀ = 13.51 ± 0.22 µg/mL and IC₅₀ = 25.30 ± 0.85 µg/mL), respectively. In a 28-day in vivo study, oral administration of the methanol bark extract significantly (p < 0.01) reduced fasting serum glucose levels and improved lipid profiles, with decreases in triglycerides (5%) and total cholesterol (2%), and an increase in HDL (5%) compared with baseline. The extract-treated group also showed higher hepatic glycogen content (14.06 ± 0.002 mg/mL) than the Gliclazide-treated group (12.82 ± 0.002 mg/mL). In silico molecular docking identified Corilagin exhibiting the highest binding affinity (−10.3 kcal/mol), stable interaction (RMSD = 1.469 ± 0.133 Å), and favorable binding free energy (ΔGBFE = −27.48 ± 3.15) with α-amylase, suggesting that it may act as a competitive inhibitor of an enzyme’s active site. Overall, these findings highlight that E. angustifolius bark significantly inhibits glucose absorption and improves dyslipidemia to some extent, while in silico analysis suggests that Corilagin has potential as an inhibitory activity against type-2 diabetes.

1. Introduction

Diabetes mellitus is the most common endocrine disorder, resulting from insufficient insulin production or the body’s inability to use insulin effectively, ensuing in abnormal glucose concentrations in the blood [1]. The prevalence of diabetes in urban areas has dramatically increased across numerous Asian countries, with a substantial rise seen in places like Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and China. etc [2]. Over the past few decades, there has been a consistent increase in the number of people who have diabetes. The International Diabetes Federation Atlas, 11th edition, predicted that 589 million adults were living with diabetes. Also, the global population of individuals living with diabetes is anticipated to grow to 853 million by 2050 [3]. Diabetes mellitus (DM) presents an elevated risk of numerous consequences, including heart disease, peripheral vascular conditions, stroke, nerve damage, kidney failure, vision loss due to retinopathy, etc [4].

People with type 2 diabetes mellitus are more likely to experience a variety of immediate and long-term problems, which typically contribute to premature mortality [5]. Diabetes can be treated with a wide range of hypoglycemic agents or medications, including biguanides, sulfonylureas, and metformin [6]. However, none of these treatments are optimal because of their harmful side effects, and responses are occasionally reduced, sometimes with prolonged use. A fundamental drawback of these treatments is that they require lifelong prescriptions and often lead to undesirable side effects [7]. The use of therapeutic herbs that possess hypoglycemic properties has gained popularity in recent years [8]. The presence of carotenoids, flavonoids, polysaccharides, terpenoids, alkaloids, and glycosides in most plants exhibits antidiabetic properties [9]. The antiglycemic effect of plant therapy is ascribed to the plant’s ability to suppress pancreatic tissue function, which is accomplished by either boosting insulin production or reducing intestinal glucose absorption [10].

Elaeocarpus angustifolius, commonly referred as Rudraksha, belongs to the Elaeocarpaceae family, which is about 50−200 feet long and possesses a cylindrical trunk with greyish white and rough-textured bark. Its captivating fruit stones and therapeutic medicinal properties make it popular [11]. Traditionally, Rudraksha’s bark, beads, and leaves are used to treat a wide range of conditions, such as diabetes, anxiety, depression, nerve pain, epilepsy, migraine, stress, microbial infections, etc [12]. In the context of Nepal, people from remote areas believe this plant is useful for managing diabetes. In general, Elaeocarpus species are characterized by their presence of numerous compounds, including triterpenes, tannins, saponins, alkaloids, flavonoids, terpenoids, etc. [13]. This abundance of bioactive compounds makes Rudraksha an effective herbal remedy for addressing a variety of ailments [13]. Several scientific reports demonstrated that different fractions of bark, leaves, or fruit significantly reduce glucose levels and are used to treat type-2 diabetes. However, studies on phytochemical compounds of Elaeocarpus species and their antidiabetic activities with in silico insights have been limited. Hence, this study aims to explore antioxidants, in vivo and in vitro antidiabetic activities of the Elaeocarpus angustifolius blume. Nonetheless, animal models remain an invaluable tool for understanding the biological response and disease related complications, as well as translating experimental findings to medical applications. Additionally, this research plans to conduct in silico molecular docking, molecular dynamics, free energy, and assess ADMET toxicity parameters to support our in vitro and in vivo findings and elucidate the mechanism responsible for biological activity.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Chemicals

Methanol (CH3OH), Ethanol (CH3CH2OH), Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), Hexane, Dichloromethane (DCM), Ethylacetate (C4H8O2), Dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), Aluminium trichloride (AlCl3), Di-potassium hydrogen orthophosphate, Triple de-ionised water, Potassium acetate (CH3COOK), Potassium dihydrogen orthophosphate, were purchased from a local supplier. Quercetin, Folin-Ciocalteu reagent (FCR), Gallic acid, 2, 2-diphenyl-1-picryhydrazyl (DPPH), 2-chloro-4-nitrophenyl-α-maltotrioside (CNPG3), Acarbose, P-nitrophenyl-α-D-glucopyranoside (PNPG), α-glucosidase from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, Germany. Streptozotocin (STZ) (Sigma Aldrich), Glucose oxidase (GOD-PAP) reagents, Sulphuric acid, Rat Insulin ELISA kit, Cholesterol oxidase/peroxidase (CHOD-PAP) reagent, Enzymatic colourimetric (GPO-PAP) reagent, and Gliclazide were purchased from Randox Laboratories.

2.2 Plant materials

The fresh bark of E. angustifolius was collected from Kirtipur, Kathmandu, situated at 27°40’56”N and 85°15’15’‘ at about 1400 m above sea level. The plants underwent taxonomical identification at the National Herbarium and Plant Laboratories, Godavari, Lalitpur, Nepal (Voucher code no: 110 KATHI 64207).

2.3 Preparation of type-2 diabetic model rats

Long-Evans rats sourced from Bangladesh University of Health Sciences (BUHS) animal house, where healthy adult rats with body weights ranging from 195g to 295g were chosen for this study. The animals were fed with a conventional commercial pellet diet and boiled water. All the rats were kept in the same environment, and they maintained standard conditions of humidity (40−70%), temperature (22 ± 2°C), and light (12-hour light and 12-hour dark cycle). Type-2 diabetes was induced by injecting streptozotocin into citrate buffer (pH 4.5) at a dose of 90 mg/mL into neonatal rat pups within 48 hours of their birth. The development of type-2 diabetes mellitus in the Long-Evans rats was confirmed by testing their blood serum glucose level with the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The experiment was performed based on ARRIVE guidelines. The animals were first ethically approved by the Ethical Review Committee (ERC) of the Bangladesh University of Health Sciences with a Memo No: BUHS/ERC/EA/23/62.

2.4 Experimental design

Twenty-four rats (6 normal; 18 STZ-induced diabetic rats) were allocated into four groups, each including six rats. Group 1: Normal water control (NWC) treated (10mL/kg bw), Group 2: Diabetes water control (DWC) (10mL/kg bw), Group 3: Gliclazide treated (GT) (20 mg/kg/5mL), and Group 4: Extract treated (Elaeocarpus angustifolius bark) received 1.25g/kg/10 ml. All the rats were fed extracts, water, and a control orally for 28 days. During the experiment, the body weight was recorded five times: on the 0th day, 7th day, 14th day, 21st day, and 28th day. The blood was collected at 0 and 28 days. On the 0th day, blood was drawn from the tail vein, while on the 28th day, blood was collected from the heart via the cardiac puncture method. After 30 minutes of blood collection, it was centrifuged at normal room temperature at 3700 rpm.

2.5 Preparation of plant extract

The bark of E. angustifolius was collected, cleaned, and allowed to dry at room temperature without exposure to sunlight. They were then finely ground into a powder using a grinding machine. The powdered plants were extracted using methanol through the maceration method [14]. The powdered sample was placed in a clean, dry conical flask, and pure (100%) methanol was added, and then left for three days. The mixture was then filtered out using filter paper; similarly, filtrates were collected in a separate beaker. The residue was further subjected to three additional rounds of extraction using the same process. All the combined filtrates were filtered through Whatman filter paper and were concentrated at 45 °C using a rotary evaporator. Then, the remaining filtrate from each sample was placed in a water bath at 37 °C to obtain a dried sample. The resulting extract was weighed to determine the yield percentage and stored in a refrigerator at 4 °C for further analysis. Also, the methanol extract was dissolved in water, and three successive fractionations were carried out using hexane, DCM, and ethyl acetate.

2.6 Phytochemical screening

The methanol extract of E. angustifolius bark was subjected to a preliminary qualitative phytochemical screening to detect the plant components. All the phytochemical screening of the extract was carried out in accordance with the protocol described by [15].

2.7 Total phenolic content (TPC) and total flavonoid content (TFC)

The Folin-Ciocalteu colourimetric method based on oxidation-reduction reaction process was used to assess total phenolic content in the plant extract [16]. The reaction mixture was prepared by adding 20 µL of plant extract with a concentration of 1 mg/mL, 100 µL of 10% Folin-Ciocalteu (FC) reagent, and 80 µL of 1M sodium carbonate (Na2CO3). This reaction mixture then allowed to stand at room temperature in dark for 20 minutes. The maximum absorbance was measured at 765 nm. The standard solution of gallic acid undergoes the same procedure. The total phenolic content in the plant extract was determined as milligrams of gallic acid equivalent per gram (mg GAE/g) of plant extract.

Similarly, Total flavonoid content was determined by using the aluminium chloride colourimetric method with slight modifications [17]. The mixture was then prepared by combining 20 µL of plant extract with a concentration of 1 mg/mL, 110 µL of distilled water, and 60 µL of ethanol. After that, 5 µL of AlCl3 and 5 µL of CH3COOK were added simultaneously. The mixture was incubated at room temperature for 30 minutes. The standard Quercetin solution undergoes the same procedure. The maximum absorbance was taken at 415 nm. The total flavonoid content in the plant extract was determined as milligrams of quercetin equivalent per gram (mg QE/g) of plant extract.

2.8 In vitro antioxidant activity

The free radical scavenging activity of the extract and fractions was assessed by the DPPH (1, 1 diphenyl-2- picryl- hydrazyl) free radical scavenging method with slight modifications [18]. Standard quercetin and methanol extract and its fractions of varying concentrations (100 µL each) were loaded into separate well plates. Subsequently, 100 µL of (0.1mM) DPPH was added. The mixture was incubated in the dark at room temperature for 30 min. The absorbance was then taken at 517 nm. Finally, % inhibition was then calculated by using the following formula.

% inhibition =Ac−AsAc ×100  (1)

Where Ac and As are the absorbance of the control and sample.

2.9 In vitro α-glucosidase inhibition activity

A modified version of a previously known method was used for the α-glucosidase inhibition assay for the extract and fractions [19]. The mixture of 40 µL of plant extract of various concentrations, along with 10 µL of α-glucosidase (0.20 units/mL) enzyme and 80 µL of phosphate buffer solution, was pre-incubated at 37 °C for 10 minutes. Subsequently, 20 µL of pNPG substrate and 50 µL of Na2CO3 were added to the mixture. The yellow colour produced by p-nitrophenol was measured at 405 nm. The same process was used to the standard Acarbose. % inhibition was then calculated by using the formula as mentioned in equation 1.

2.10 In vitro α-amylase inhibition activity

The α-amylase inhibition assay for the extract and fractions followed a modified version of a previously established method [20]. The mixture of 20 µL of plant extract of various concentrations, along with 80 µL of α- amylase (1.5 units/mL) enzyme, was pre-incubated at 37 °C for 10 minutes. Subsequently, 100 µL of CNPG3 substrate was added to the mixture. The yellow color produced by chloro-nitrophenol was measured at 405 nm. The standard Acarbose underwent the same procedures. % inhibition was then calculated by using the formula as shown in equation 1.

2.11 LC-MS analysis

An LC-ESI/MS system was used to examine the 100% ethylacetate extract of E. angustifolius bark. Liquid chromatography was conducted using Thermo Dionex Ultimate 3000 coupled with a SCIEX Triple TOF ® 6600 + . The mobile phase consisted of 0.1% formic acid in water (A) and 0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile (B), flowing at 0.3mL/min in a linear gradient as follows: (Time. % B): 0 min-5, 2 min −5, 20 min- 95, 25 min- 95, 25.5 min- 5, 30 min – 5. Analysis was done by using 2 µL of plant extract at a concentration of 1 mg/mL. An integrated single quadrupole mass analyzer was used to perform mass spectrometric detection using ESI in both positive and negative modes, scanning from m/z 100–1500 Da. The analysis was conducted using SCIEX OS software version 3.3.0.12027, with library searches performed against NIST 2017 and the natural product HR-MS/MS 2.0 database.

2.12 In vivo assay

2.12.1 Serum glucose level.

The glucose Oxidase (GOD-PAP) method was used for the estimation of serum glucose level. Blood collected for 0 days and 28 days was then centrifuged for 4–10 minutes (3500–4000 rpm), and serum separation was done. 5 µL of sample and 250 µL of GOD-PAP reagent were combined and then incubated at 37 °C for 15 minutes. The absorbance was taken at 490–510 WL. The standard glucose (20Mm) of varying concentrations undergoes the same procedure.

2.12.2 Serum cholesterol measurement.

Cholesterol level was determined using the colorimetric (CHOD-PAP) method [21]. 5 µL of sample serum and 200 µL of CHOD-PAP reagent were combined, and incubation at 37 °C for 5 minutes. The absorbance was taken at 490–510 nm.

2.12.3 Serum triglyceride measurement.

The enzymatic colourimetric (GPO-PAP) method was applied for the determination of serum TG [22]. 5 µL serum sample and 200 µL of GPO-PAP reagent were combined, and incubation was done for 5 minutes at 37 °C. The absorbance was taken at 490–510 WL.

2.12.4 Serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL).

The colourimetric (CHOD-PAP) method was used to determine the high-density lipoprotein (HDL). Sample serum and precipitant were mixed (1:2 ratios) and centrifuged for 10 minutes (3500–4000 rpm). 20 µL supernatant sample and 200µLof CHOD-PAP reagent were mixed, followed by incubation for at 37 °C for 5 minutes. The absorbance was taken at 490–510 WL.

2.12.5 Low-density lipoprotein (LDL).

LDL was estimated by using the following formula:

LDL=(total cholesterol−HDL)−(TG/5) (2)

2.12.6 Glycogen level.

Measurement of glycogen from rat liver was done by the Anthrone Sulphuric acid method [23]. 200 mg of rat liver was taken, and then 5% of TCA (Trichloroacetic acid) was used to homogenize the liver and the suspension was then filtered to obtain a watery-like solution as a sample. After that, 2mL of KOH (10N) and 1mL of TCA were added to each of the sample solutions, like DWC, NWC, GT, and extract one. Similarly, after 2–3 minutes of shaking, incubation for 1 hour in paraffin solution at 100 °C was performed. After incubation, 1mL of glacial acetic acid and 2 mL of anthrone solution were added. Again, the solution is incubated in paraffin solution at 100 °C for 10 min. After incubation sample solution is cooled, and 200 µL of the sample solution is taken to observe the absorbance. The absorbance was taken with a 650 nm – 492nm range. The same procedure is done for standard glucose solutions.

2.13 Statistical analysis

The in vitro statistical analysis was done with GraphPad Prism version 8.0 for Windows. Values are expressed as the mean ± SD. Statistical evaluation of in vivo data was performed by using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) for windows 10. Data has been expressed as mean ± SD. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a paired sample t-test was used to perform statistical comparison between groups. The significance level was considered at p < 0.05.

2.14 Computational method

2.14.1 Molecular docking studies.

The structure of identified ligands was retrieved from the PubChem server in the form of SDF, which was optimized and then converted into PDB by using Avogadro’s software (Fig 1) [24,25]. The Protein Data Bank server (https://www.rcsb.org/) was utilized to obtain proteins α-glucosidase (PDB ID: 3A4A) and α-amylase (PDB ID: 2QV4) in PDB format, with resolution was 1.60 Å and 1.97 Å, respectively [26,27]. First, the proteins were cleaned by removing water molecules, co-crystallized ligand, and adding hydrogen bonds by using Biovia Discovery Studio Visualizer to prepare them for further analysis. Afterwards, AutoDock Vina v1.5.7, which adds a kollman charges of −30.6 and 7.376 for alpha-glucosidase and alpha amylase, respectively, to make the system neutral. Using AutoDock Tools v1.5.7, the protein and ligand structures were converted from PDB to PDBQT format and AutoDock Vina was used to conduct molecular docking [28,29]. The box size for alpha-glucosidase and alpha amylase was 40, 40, 40 grid points with spacing 0.375 Å with an energy range of 4 and 20 modes, with an exhaustiveness of 32. The grid centers were set for (X = 23.244385, Y = −7.482308, Z = 23.570923) and (X = 12.4367, Y = 48.132, Z = 26.1819) for alpha-glucosidase and alpha amylase, respectively. The CASTp server and various literature sources were used to confirm the orthosteric sites of the proteins [26,30]. The interaction of the protein and ligands was investigated using Biovia Discovery Studio visualizer software [31]. The docking protocol was validated by achieving an RMSD of less than 2 Å between heavy atoms in the docked pose and the crystal structure (S1 Fig).

Fig 1. Chemical structures of phytoconstituents identified from the ethylacetate fraction of E. angustifolius.

Fig 1

2.14.2 Molecular dynamics simulation.

The MD simulations were carried out using GROMACS v2019.6 [32]. For the receptor topology, the CHARMM27 force field was used due to its compatibility with ligand topology files obtained from the Swiss Param server [33,34]. The MD simulations of the best binding protein-ligand complex were conducted out with a time-step of 2 fs per step in TIP3P water as the solvent in a dodecahedron box neutralized with Na+ and Cl- ions at a constant temperature of 300 K. The NVT and NPT runs were each 100 ps long, and the output was run for 100 ns long, with a time interval of 100 ps between frames to generate 1000 frames MD trajectories. These were descriptions of the typical procedures involved in running an MD simulation. To determine the protein-ligand complex’s stability, changes in conformation, and binding effectiveness, parameters like Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD), Root Mean Square Fluctuation (RMSF), Radius of Gyration (Rg), and Solvent Accessible Surface Area (SASA) were obtained by using GROMACS’ inbuilt modules, while H-bond count was obtained by using VMD v1.9.3 with donor acceptor distance of 3.5 Å [35].

2.14.3 Binding free energy calculations.

The molecular mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA) method was adopted to calculate the variations in the binding free energies of the protein-ligand complex using equation 3 [36].

ΔGBFE=ΔGcomplex−(ΔGprotein+ ΔGligand) (3)
ΔGBFE=ΔGgas+ΔGsolv (4)

ΔGgas is the total of electrostatic (ΔEEL) and van der Waals energies (ΔEVDW), whereas ΔGsolv is the sum of polar (ΔEPB) and nonpolar (ΔENPOLAR) components [37].

ΔGBFE=ΔGVDW+ΔGEL+ΔGPB+ΔGNPOLAR (5)

The spontaneity and viability of the forward reaction were evaluated based on the sign of free energy changes. Here, 100 frames representing 10 ns of the equilibrated final part of the MDS trajectory were used.

2.14.4 ADMETanalysis.

For evaluating the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of compounds were evaluated from ProTox-III, pkCSM, ADMETlab2.0, and Swiss ADME web servers [38–41].

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Phytochemical screening

The total yield percentage obtained from the methanol extract of E. angustifolius bark is 12.40%. The methanol extract of E. angustifolius bark showed the presence of phytochemical constituents such as tannins, phenols, alkaloids, terpenoids, flavonoids, reducing sugar, saponins, volatiles, carbohydrates, and glycosides (S1 Table). These results demonstrate the abundance of various phytochemicals in the extracts, underscoring their potential medicinal value. Similarly, a previous study on the phytochemical screening of different parts of the Elaeocarpus plants revealed that phenolic, terpenoids, saponin, and flavonoids are the most prevalent phytochemicals present in it, as compared to other phytoconstituents, which are comparable to this work [42].

3.2 Total phenolic content

The total phenolic content of the methanol extract of E. angustifolius bark was assessed through folin-ciocalteu assay, employing gallic acid as the standard that can be quantified at 765 nm using a visible light spectrophotometer. A calibration curve was created by plotting gallic acid absorption versus concentration (S2 Fig). The total phenolic content was determined from this curve using the regression equation Y = 0.0072x + 0.01 and R2 = 0.9988 followed by C = cV/M and expressed as mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE) per gram of extract in dry weight. The phenolic content of the methanol extract of bark was found to be 182.73 ± 0.001 mg GAE/g, respectively, in dry weight. Similarly, the TPC and TFC values obtained from this study are comparable to the results reported by previous findings on E. ganitrus seeds [43]. The quantitative estimation of total phenolic content showed that the extract is rich in phenolic compounds, which possess physiological activity.

3.3 Total flavonoid content

The total flavonoid content of the methanol extract of E. angustifolius bark was determined using a colorimetric assay, aluminium chloride method, where quercetin was used as a standard reference for the determination of the calibration curve. The absorption was taken at 415 nm using a UV-VS spectrophotometer with different concentrations, and then the graph was plotted as absorption versus concentration (S3 Fig). The regression equation Y = 0.0232x + 0.0028 and R2 = 0.9907 followed by C = cV/M was used to determine the total flavonoid content and expressed as mg quercetin equivalent per gram (mg QE/g) from the calibration curve. The flavonoid content of the methanol extract of bark was found to be 48.78 ± 0.06 mg QE/g, respectively, in dry weights. The total flavonoid content of the E. angustifolius bark showed bark was rich in flavonoids, which might exhibit a wide range of medicinal properties. Also, the TPC and TFC values obtained from this study showed higher values in comparison to the values obtained from E. sphaericus methanolic leaf extract [44]. The presence of these secondary metabolites in the plant extract helps in reducing various biological ailments.

3.4 In vitro antioxidant activity

The antioxidant activity of the methanol extract and fractions of E. angustifolius bark was determined by the DPPH free radical scavenging method. The antioxidant activity of E. angustifolius bark and its fractions (hexane, DCM, ethylacetate, aqueous) is calculated (S2 Table). The antioxidant activity of the crude extract of E. angustifolius bark was found to be 1.48 ± 0.39 µg/mL. Similarly, ethylacetate fractions of E. angustifolius bark showed the minimum IC50 value of 1.47 ± 0.37 µg/mL, while the DCM fractions showed the maximum IC50 value of 13.46 ± 0.00 µg/mL. Additionally, Hexane fractions showed the IC50 value of 6.48 ± 1.11 µg/mL, and aqueous fractions with an IC50 value of 1.48 ± 0.28 µg/mL. The DPPH free radical scavenging activity of E. angustifolius crude and fractions shows comparable activity with the standard quercetin (4.87 ± 0.16 µg/mL). The previously reported antioxidant activity of the methanolic extract of E. floribundus bark and the ethyl acetate extract of leaves exhibited an IC50 value of 7.36 ± 0.01 and 9.37 ± 0.06 µg/mL, respectively, which is significantly comparable to this work [45]. Therefore, the bark of E. angustifolius possesses superior antioxidant activity due to the presence of flavonoids, phenols, and other classes of bioactive secondary metabolites.

3.5 In vitro α-glucosidase activity

The antidiabetic activity of the plant extract was assessed by α-glucosidase inhibitory assay, where acarbose is used as a standard. Crude extracts of E. angustifolius bark, along with their fractions, were tested in vitro, and the data were analysed based on their IC50 values (S3 Table). The IC50 value of crude methanol extracts of E. angustifolius bark was found to be 0.79 ± 0.13 µg/mL. Similarly, among the fractions of E. angustifolius bark, aqueous fractions showed the maximum α-Glucosidase inhibition activity with an IC50 value of 1.46 ± 0.30 µg/mL. The DCM fraction showed the least inhibition activity with an IC50 value of 16.97 ± 0.22 µg/mL. Likewise, ethyl acetate fractions showed an IC50 value of 1.79 ± 0.29 µg/mL, and hexane fractions showed an IC50 value of 1.73 ± 0.02 µg/mL, respectively. The extract and fractions show strong considerable inhibitory efficacy against α-glucosidase in comparison to standard acarbose 13.51 ± 0.22 µg/mL. Likewise, previous studies demonstrated comparable inhibition activity of the n-butanol fraction of Elaeocarpus bark against α-glucosidase with an IC50 value of 2.32 ± 0.62 µg/mL [46].

3.6 In vitro α-amylase activity

The results showed that the methanol extract exhibited high enzyme inhibition capacity against α-amylase with an IC50 value of 3.48 ± 0.00 µg/mL. Similarly, the aqueous fraction shows 4.79 ± 0.06 µg/mL, whereas the DCM fraction showed a considerably higher IC50 value of 23.53 ± 0.18 µg/mL. Likewise, hexane and ethyl acetate fractions demonstrated IC50 values of 10.33 ± 0.15 µg/mL and 9.36 ± 0.38 µg/mL, respectively. These were more active than the standard acarbose with an IC50 value of 25.30 ± 0.85 µg/mL (S4 Table). Similarly, enzyme inhibition activity in bark methanol extract was observed in a previous report against α-amylase with an IC50 value of 2.81 ± 0.37 µg/mL [46].

3.7 In vivo assay

3.7.1 Body weight of animals.

During the 28th day experimental period, the body weight of each rat was measured at every 7th day interval. The body weight of NWC, DWC, and EA (E. angustifolius) treated groups increased gradually by 10%, 4%, and 22%, respectively, compared to their 0th day body weight. But the body weight of the GT-treated groups was slightly decreased by 2% compared to their 0th day body weight. However, compared with NWC, DWC, GT, and EA treated groups, NWC vs. EA has shown a significant reduction (p < 0.001), DWC vs. EA has shown a significant reduction (p < 0.001), and GT vs. EA has shown a significant reduction (p < 0.001) of body weight on the final day, respectively (S5 Table).

3.7.2 Serum glucose level.

After 28 days of treatment, the serum glucose level of the extract-treated group in rats decreased 21% when compared to the baseline value. The EA-treated group slightly decreased fasting serum glucose (p < 0.013) when compared with the baseline value (0 vs 28 days). Moreover, a non-significant reduction (p > 1.000) of glucose level was found when compared with the GT group. As expected, fasting serum glucose levels of DWC and NWC rats in 28th days increased by 7% and 2%, respectively, compared to the baseline value. Likewise, the fasting serum glucose level of the GT group of rats in 28th days decreased by 28% (Fig 2 and S6 Table). Similarly, previous studies of Elaeocarpus species show a significant reduction of serum glucose level in experimental animals [47].

Fig 2. Serum glucose level in different experimental rat groups.

Fig 2

Group NWC, DWC, GT, and EA represent normal water control, diabetic water control rat, Gliclazide-treated rat, and Elaeocarpus angustifolius-treated rat, respectively. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (M ± SD). Statistical significance among groups was determined using one-way ANOVA, followed by a paired sample t-test for post hoc comparison.

3.7.3 Lipid profile level.

After 28 days of treatment, in a lipid profile, the Ea-treated group showed a 5% decrease in triglycerides (TG), 2% decrease in cholesterol, 5% increase in high-density lipoproteins (HDL), and 5% decrease in low-density lipoprotein (LDL), which is quite comparable with standard Gliclazide. Similarly, the Ea-treated group shows a significant reduction (p < 0.006) in TG value, a significant reduction (p < 0.034) in cholesterol value and a significant reduction (p < 0.040) in LDL value but HDL shows a significant increase (p > 0.144) respectively when compared to the baseline value (0 vs 28 days). Moreover, a significant reduction (p < 0.001) of TG, HDL, and LDL was found as compared with the GT value (S7 Table). Also, a similar reduction in triglycerides, cholesterol, and low-density lipoproteins and a significant increase in high-density lipoproteins were observed in an earlier report of Elaeocarpus species [48].

3.7.4 Glycogen level.

After 28 Days of treatment, the Ea extract-treated group shows a higher glycogen value of 14.06 ± 0.002 mg/mL as compared to DWC treated group with a glycogen value of 1.39 ± 0.002 mg/mL (Fig 3 and S8 Table). Also, the EA-treated group increased significantly (p < 0.001) when compared with the DWC, NWC, and GT treated group.

Fig 3. Glycogen content in different experimental rat groups.

Fig 3

Group NWC, DWC, GT, and EA represent normal water control, diabetic water control rat, Gliclazide-treated rat, Elaeocarpus angustifolius-treated rat, respectively. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (M ± SD). Statistical significance among groups was determined using one-way ANOVA, followed by a paired sample t-test for post hoc comparison.

3.8 LC-MS analysis

LC-MS analysis of 100% ethylacetate extract of E. angustifolius identified thirteen phytoconstituents, as detailed in Table 1. All compounds were characterized by analysing their spectral information, including molecular mass and retention time, acquired using positive and negative mode electron spray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) (S4 and S5 Figs), respectively.

Table 1. Phytoconstituents identified by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry on ethylacetate fractions of E. angustifolius.

Sl. No RT (Min) Identification Molecular formula Actual m/z Experimental m/z [M-H] Fragments m/z Error Library score
1. 0.85 D-saccharic acid C6H10O8 210.1388 209.0313 85.0304, 71.0149,57.0357 1.1075 78.5
2. 1.38 Gallic acid C7H6O5 170.1195 169.0239 125.0270, 79.0205,51.0253 1.0956 98.4
3. 4.04 Vanillic acid C8H8O4 168.1467 167.0330 108.0226, 91.0199, 65.0042 1.1137 65.4
4. 5.21 Methyl gallate C8H8O5 184.1461 183.0370 124.0258, 78.0156 1.1091 97.1
5. 6.29 Ferulic acid C10H10O4 194.1840 193.0488 134.0385, 133.0300, 89.0421 1.152 90.6
6. 6.09 Corilagin C27H22O18 634.4550 633.0807 301.0034, 275.0229 1.3743 100.0
7. 6.90 Ethylgallate C9H10O5 198.1727 197.0463 124.0178, 78.0119 1.1264 95.5
8. 8.73 Abscisic acid C15H20O4 264.3210 263.1302 219.1441, 189.0982, 139.0776 1.1908 92.7
9. 14.20 Emodin C15H10O5 270.2369 269.0468 241.0528, 225.0574, 197.0621 1.1901 96.1
10. 26.99 Ellagic acid C14H6O8 302.1970 301.0024 284.0006, 245.0130, 229.0123 1.1946 86.7
11. 6.43 Rutin C27H30O16 610.5175 611.1674 303.0483 0.6499 78.2
12. 7.25 Geraniin C41H28O27 952.6480 951.0856 933.0735, 301.0018 1.5624 77.3
13. 7.38 Isoquercetin C21H20O12 464.3763 463.0983 301.0301, 167.0180 1.278 99.0

The mass spectrum of the peak eluted at 0.85 min revealed adduct ions with a m/z value of 209.0313 [M-H]-. Additionally, a fragment ion was observed at m/z 85.0304, which resulted from sequential loss of carboxylic and hydroxyl group to form stabilized acylium ion at m/z 85.0304 [OH-CH2-CH = CH-C⁺=O]. Through the analysis of mass spectra m/z database and relevant scientific literature, D-saccharic acid was determined to be the compound. This compound has been identified in Elaeocarpus species [49].

The mass spectrum of the peak eluted at 1.39 min revealed adduct ions with a m/z value of 169.0239 [M-H]-. Also, a fragment ion was observed at m/z 125.0270, which resulted from sequential loss of CO2 (44 Da), represented as [M-H-CO2]. Such findings and analysis of databases confirm the compound as Gallic acid. Similar findings were aligned with a previous report on various species of Elaeocarpus [50].

The analyte’s mass spectrum eluted at 3.04 min, detected adduct ions with a m/z value of 167.0330 [M-H]-. Moreover, a fragment ion with a m/z value of 108.0226 was found, which resulted from decarboxylation and demethylation of vanillic acid. Through the analysis, scientific literature, and earlier reports on Elaeocarpus, the compound was determined to be vanillic acid [50].

The mass spectral peak appeared at 5.23 min of retention time, revealing adduct ions with a m/z value of 183.0370 [M-H]-. Furthermore, a fragment ion was observed at m/z 124.0258, which resulted from decarboxylation and demethylation, represented as [M-H-CO2-CH3]. These spectral characteristics, supported by scientific literature and database analysis, identified the compound as Methyl gallate. Similar findings were also reported in earlier findings on Elaeocarpus species [51].

The peak appeared at 6.29 min showed a mass spectrum of an ion with a m/z value of 193.05 [M-H]-. Additionally, a fragment ion was observed at m/z 134.04, likely due to decarboxylation and demethylation, labelled as [M-H-CO2-CH3]. Several databases and scientific literature supported this to be the compound Ferulic acid. Such findings were aligned with previous reports on Elaeocarpus species [52].

The mass spectrum of the peak eluted at 6.09 min revealed adduct ions with a m/z value of 633.0807 [M-H]-. Similarly, a fragment of ion was reported at the m/z value of 301.0034, likely due to the formation of a dimer of gallic acid (C14H6O8). By comparing these findings with previous reports on Elaeocarpus species, the compound was matched with Corilagin. Based on such similarity, this compound was reported as Corilagin [53].

Analysis of the peak with retention time of 6.90 min revealed the adduct ions with a m/z value of 197.0463 [M-H]-. In addition, a fragment ion at m/z value of 124.0178 was also observed, which is due to loss of ethyl group (CH2CH3) and decarboxylation (44 Da), labelled as [M-H- CH2CH3-CO2]. Similar findings and through a literature survey on Elaeocarpus species, this compound was confirmed to be Ethyl gallate [54].

The mass spectrum of the peak eluted at 8.73 min displays adduct ions with a m/z value of 263.1302 [M-H]-. Likewise, a fragment of ion was reported at the m/z value of 219.1441, due to decarboxylation represented as [M-H- CO2]. Such findings revealed the compound to be abscisic acid, which was confirmed by several literature surveys and available databases on Elaeocarpus species [49].

The mass spectral peak appeared at 14.20 min of retention time, revealing the m/z value of 269.0468 [M-H]-. Also, fragments of ions were shown at m/z value of 241.0528 due to loss of (CO-28 Da) and at m/z value of 225.06, likely due to demethylation (CH3–15 Da). By comparing phytoconstituents reported on various species of Elaeocarpus, the compound was confirmed as emodin [49].

The peak appeared at 26.99 min of retention time, revealing the mass spectrum at m/z value of 301.0024 [M-H]-. In addition, a fragment of ion was observed at the m/z value of 284.0006, likely due to loss of water (H2O). Through the analysis of databases and related scientific literature, the compound was confirmed as ellagic acid, which is also reported in earlier reports on Elaeocarpus species [55].

The mass spectrum of the peak eluting at 6.43 min exhibits adduct ions at the m/z value of 611.1674 [M-H]-. Additionally, a fragment ion at m/z of 303.0483 was detected, attributed to the sequential loss of sugar moiety (C12H20O9 −308 Da). These results, together with database comparison, confirmed the compound as rutin, aligned with previously reported data on Elaeocarpus species [54].

The peak observed at 6.26 min of retention time showed a mass spectrum at m/z value of 951.0856 [M-H]- and a fragment ion at m/z 933.0735, corresponding with the loss of water (H2O). Database comparison confirmed the compound as geraniin, which is also reported in prior reports of various species of Elaeocarpus [56].

The mass spectrum eluted at 7.38 min showed adduct ions at the m/z value of 463.0983 [M-H]-. Similarly, a fragment of ion was observed at m/z 301.0301, likely due to the formation of quercetin derivatives. Through database analysis and literature, the compound was determined to be isoquercetin. This compound has been identified in various species of Elaeocarpus [57].

3.9 Computational analysis

3.9.1 Molecular docking analysis.

After the LC-MS study, molecular docking was carried out among the identified compounds and the target proteins. The active site residues for alpha-glucosidase with glucose molecules were HIS122, ARG213, ASP215, ASP69, GLU277, HIS351, ARG442, ASP352, and for alpha amylase with acarbose molecules active site residues were TYR62, GLN63, THR163, THR163, GLY164, ASN105, ALA106, VAL107, TRP59, HIS101, GLU233, ARG195, ASP300, and HIS299. Corilagin had the lowest binding affinity of −10.3 kcal/mol, lower than the reference ligand −8.4 kcal/mol for alpha amylase (Table 2). Whereas Rutin had the lowest binding affinity of −10.0 kcal/mol, surpassing the reference ligand −9.1 kcal/mol for alpha-glucosidase. Both show lower binding affinity for the target proteins, which means greater stability at the orthosteric sites.

Table 2. Molecular docking score of different constituents against α-amylase and α-glucosidase.
S. N PubChem ID Compound Name Binding affinity with α-amylase (Kcal/mol) Binding affinity with α-glucosidase (Kcal/mol)
1 73568 D-Saccharic acid −6.3 −6.0
2 5280805 Gallic acid −6.3 −6.4
3 5280804 Vanillic acid −5.6 −6.1
4 3220 Methyl gallate −6.4 −6.5
5 5281855 Ferulic aci d −6.6 −6.6
6 3001497 Corilagin −10.3 −9.6
7 5280896 Ethyl gallate −6.4 −6.5
8 445858 Abscisic acid −7.0 −6.8
9 7428 Emodin −8.4 −8.3
10 13250 Ellagic acid −8.7 −8.1
11 370 Rutin −9.6 −10.0
12 8468 Geraniin −9.6 −8.1
13 78997 Isoquercetin −8.6 −9.4
14 79025 Alpha-D-Glucose (Native ligand) – −5.9
15 41774 Glucobay (Native ligand) −10.4 –
16 445421 Alpha-Acarbose (Reference drug) −8.4 −9.1

The alpha amylase-Corilagin complex interacts with key residues of amino acids such as ASP197 (4.11 Å), ALA198 (3.43 Å), HIS201 (4.90 Å), GLN63 (4.09 Å), and TRP59 (3.98 Å) through hydrogen bonding (Fig 4a). Additional interactions include Van der Waals’ force of attraction (GLY306, LYS200, HIS101, GLU60, HIS305, ARG195, HIS299, VAL98, TRP58, TYR62), and Pi-Sigma (THR163). Similarly, the alpha-glucosidase-Rutin complex forms hydrogen bonds with SER240 (4.18 Å and 3.82 Å), ASP242 (4.03 Å), and ASP352 (3.94 Å) amino acid residues (Fig 4b). Other interactions include Pi-Alkyl (LYS156), Carbon Hydrogen Bond (ARG315, ASP307, ASP242, HIS280), and Van der Waals’ (SER241, SER311, ASN415, PHE314, TYR316, PHE178, PHE159, GLU277, THR310, PHE303, GLN279, PRO312, ASP69, LEU313, SER157). Previous investigations through an identical receptor reported comparable active site residues, suggesting that the calculations were consistent [58,59].

Fig 4. A two-dimensional representation of protein-ligand interaction.

Fig 4

a) Corilagin-alpha amylase b) Rutin-alpha glucosidase.

3.9.2 Analysis of molecular dynamics.

Corilagin exhibits the highest binding affinity to α-amylase among the docked isolated compounds with both proteins. It was further investigated through a 100 ns molecular dynamics simulation to ensure that it has the highest binding affinity to alpha amylase among the docked isolated compounds with both proteins. Additionally, a 100 ns molecular dynamics simulation was conducted to ensure equilibrium of relevant system properties. The protein-backbone RMSD remained smooth at 1.469 ± 0.133 Å, indicating consistency over time (Fig 5a). Most residues had RMSF values less than 0.92 ± 0.476 Å, indicating very little fluctuation during simulation (Fig 5b). The lower RMSF value indicates that the complex is less flexible, reflecting its greater stability [60]. The protein’s SASA was used to determine the entire wettable area of the protein throughout MDS, and the complex’s SASA value was found to be 269.085 ± 1.872 nm2 (Fig 5c). The trajectory of complex formation for SASA showed less fluctuation, indicating that the complex is stable with a uniform surface area of the protein interaction with the solvent [61]. The radius of gyration (Rg) measures the compactness of the protein-ligand complex, with lower Rg values indicating a more compact structure [62]. The Rg calculation revealed a stable and smooth trajectory at 23.5 ± 0.106 Å, indicating the stability of the complex (Fig 5d). The total amount of hydrogen bonds was thoroughly monitored to over 1000 frames of MDS trajectories (Fig 5e). The continued stability of six hydrogen bonds after 350 frames, with the highest ten hydrogen bonds, indicates that the ligands are stable in their docked pose, with no significant RMSD shifts observed over the MDS period [63,64]. All these parameters show that the complex is geometrically stable throughout the MDS.

Fig 5. The plot obtained from 100 ns MDSa) RMSD with respect to protein backbone b) RMSF with respect to per residue c) SASA of protein d) Rg of protein e) H-bond count.

Fig 5

3.9.3 Binding free energy estimations.

The change in binding free energy measures both the feasibility and spontaneity of complex formation. A lower binding free energy change (ΔGBFE) indicates increased complex stability. The binding energy was found to be −27.48 ± 3.15 kcal/mol (Table 3). Complex formation was characterized by negative ΔGBFE values, indicating a spontaneous reaction (Fig 6c). The key amino acid residues that contributed to the free energy were ASP300, TRP58, TRP59, HIS305, and the ligand (Fig 6b). These outcomes were backed up by a heat map of the complex that visually represented residue contributions (Fig 6d). Darker blue colours on the heatmap represent residues that contribute more energy, and lighter, faded colours indicate minimal involvement, verifying these residues’ critical roles in ligand binding [61].

Table 3. The components of the complex’s binding free energy (kcal/mol) vary.
ΔEVDW ΔEEL ΔEPB ΔENPOLAR ΔGGAS ΔGSOLV ΔGBFE
−19.75 ± 4.07 −76.99 ± 5.7 72.25 ± 4.81 −2.99 ± 0.31 −96.74 ± 5.67 69.26 ± 4.68 −27.48 ± 3.15
Fig 6. The plot showinga) Free energy contributions of various energies to the binding energy b) The active amino acids and ligands contribute to binding free energy c) binding free energy change for complex d) A heat map displaying residue-specific contributions per frame.

Fig 6

3.9.4 ADMET analysis.

The top-performing candidate, Corilagin (class 5), has an LD50 of 2260 mg/kg. The hit candidate and acarbose both were immunotoxic; however, acarbose also exhibits hepatotoxicity, and other ADMET properties were discussed, in which neither follows Lipinski’s rule of five (3 violations) that was due to the high molecular mass and more hydrogen bond donors (Table 4) [65]. The human intestinal absorption rate for Corilagin was found to be 58.501%, which was higher than that of acarbose, 4.172%. The logBB < −1 and logPS < −3 values indicate failing to get inside the central nervous system and poor brain distribution [66]. Cytochrome enzymes, which are crucial to xenobiotic metabolism, were not inhibited by the hit compound [67]. Overall, hit candidates exhibited acceptable ADMET properties.

Table 4. Drug-likeness properties of Corilagin and the reference Drug.
Properties Corilagin Acarbose
Water solubility −2.892 −1.482
Caco2 permeability −1.337 −0.481
Intestinal absorption (human) 58.509 4.172
Skin permeability −2.735 −2.735
BBB permeability −2.828 −1.717
CNS permeability −5.044 −6.438
CYP2D6 substrate No No
CYP3A4 substrate No No
CYP1A2 inhibitor No No
CYP2C19 inhibitor No No
CYP2C9 inhibitor No No
CYP2D6 inhibitor No No
CYP3A4 inhibitor No No
Total Clearance 0.229 0.428
Renal OCT2 substrate Yes No
Hepatotoxicity No Yes
Immunotoxicity Yes Yes
Carcinogenicity No No
Cytotoxicity No No
Mutagenicity No No
Lipinski rule 3 violations 3 violations

4. Conclusion

The findings revealed that the methanol extract of E. angustifolius bark contained higher levels of total flavonoid content and total phenolic content, attributed to the diverse bioactive secondary metabolites present. It was observed that crude and fraction solutions exhibit superior antioxidant and antidiabetic activity against α-glucosidase and α-amylase, which demonstrates therapeutic potential for the treatment and management of diabetes mellitus and its related complications. Additionally, in vivo antidiabetic activity suggests that E. angustifolius bark extract effectively reduces glycemic status and improves dyslipidemia by lowering the lipid profile (TG, cholesterol, LDL) and increasing HDL cholesterol levels. Computational evaluation of the thirteen compounds identified using LC-MS was carried out with alpha-glucosidase and alpha-amylase enzymes, considering both active and allosteric pockets. It support to the in vitro and in vivo findings and further suggests that Corilagin formed a stable complex with an alpha amylase at its active site, indicating it as a potential candidate for further validation. These findings suggest that extracts from E. angustifolius bark could be valuable resources for the exploration of new, potent bioactive compounds, which can be isolated as pure compounds.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The binding interaction between the initially docked co-crystallized ligand (yellow, obtained from the PDB) and the re-docked ligand (green) results in an RMSD below 2A°.

(a) α-glucosidase, (b) α-amylase.

(TIF)

pone.0349796.s001.tif (76.9KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Calibration curve of standard gallic acid (TPC).

(TIF)

pone.0349796.s002.tif (50.8KB, tif)
S3 Fig. Calibration curve of standard quercetin (TFC).

(TIF)

pone.0349796.s003.tif (47.8KB, tif)
S4 Fig. LC-MS in positive ion- mode for ethylacetate fraction of E. angustifolius.

(TIF)

pone.0349796.s004.tif (186.4KB, tif)
S5 Fig. LC-MS in negative ion- mode for ethylacetate fraction of E.angustifolius.

(TIF)

pone.0349796.s005.tif (101KB, tif)
S1 Table. Qualitative phytochemical analysis of the methanol extract of E. angustifolius.

(DOCX)

pone.0349796.s006.docx (14.8KB, docx)
S2 Table. In vitro antioxidant activity of extract and different fractions of E. angustifolius.

(DOCX)

pone.0349796.s007.docx (14.3KB, docx)
S3 Table. In vitro α-glucosidase enzyme inhibition assay of E. angustifolius.

(DOCX)

pone.0349796.s008.docx (14.4KB, docx)
S4 Table. In vitro α-amylase enzyme inhibition assay of E. angustifolius bark extract and fractions.

(DOCX)

pone.0349796.s009.docx (14.6KB, docx)
S5 Table. Effect of E. angustifolius bark methanol extract on the body weight of STZ-induced diabetic rats.

(DOCX)

pone.0349796.s010.docx (15.9KB, docx)
S6 Table. Effect of E. angustifolius methanol extract on serum glucose level.

(DOCX)

pone.0349796.s011.docx (15.3KB, docx)
S7 Table. Effect of methanol extract of E. angustifolius on lipid profile.

(DOCX)

pone.0349796.s012.docx (17.6KB, docx)
S8 Table. Effect of E. angustifolius methanol extract on hepatic glycogen content.

(DOCX)

pone.0349796.s013.docx (14.6KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the National Herbarium and Plant Laboratories, Godavari, Lalitpur, Nepal, for plant identification. We are grateful to the Department of Chemistry and the Department of Pharmacology, Bangladesh University of Health Sciences (BUHS), for the laboratory facility.

Data Availability

All relevant data are publicly available in figshare. Manuscript data doi: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31143787 Supporting informationdoi: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31143856.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Deshmukh CD, Jain A. Diabetes mellitus: a review. Int J Pure App Biosci. 2015;3(3):224–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Shetty AS, Nanditha A. Trends in prevalence of diabetes in Asian countries. World J Diabetes. 2012;3(6):110–7. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v3.i6.110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.IDF. IDF Diabetes Atlas. IDF Diabetes Atlas [Internet]. Vol. 11th edition. International Diabetes Federation; 2025. Available from: https://www.idf.org/aboutdiabetes/type-2-diabetes.html [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nasser Singab A, Youssef FS. Medicinal plants with potential antidiabetic activity and their assessment. Med Aromat Plants. 2014;03(01). doi: 10.4172/2167-0412.1000151 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Saha, et al. A review on diabetes mellitus: type 1 & type 2. World J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2020;9(10):838–50. doi: 10.20959/wjpps202010-17336 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kooti W, Farokhipour M, Asadzadeh Z, Ashtary-Larky D, Asadi-Samani M. The role of medicinal plants in the treatment of diabetes: a systematic review. Electron Physician. 2016;8(1):1832–42. doi: 10.19082/1832 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Farag M, Ahmed WJ, Salih M, Foud I, Mohammed MS. The role of medicinal plants in the treatment of type-2 diabetes. Authors. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ahmad M, Qureshi R, Arshad M, Ajab Khan M, Zafar M. Traditional herbal remedies used for the treatment of diabetes from district Attock (Pakistan). Pak J Bot. 2009;41. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Saxena M, Saxena J, Nema R, Singh D, Gupta A. Phytochemistry of medicinal plants. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2013;1(6). [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Patel DK, Kumar R, Laloo D, Hemalatha S. Diabetes mellitus: an overview on its pharmacological aspects and reported medicinal plants having antidiabetic activity. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2012;2(5):411–20. doi: 10.1016/S2221-1691(12)60067-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Maheshwari RK, Kumar A, Punar S, Ram L, Sharma R, Kakodia AK, et al. A comprehensive review on phytochemical, pharmacological, dielectric and therapeutic attributes of multifarious Rudraksha (Elaeocarpus Ganitrus Roxb.). AIVP. 2021;9(1). doi: 10.14738/aivp.91.9438 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sunil J. Pharmacognostic studies on Rudraksh (Elaeocarpus angustifolius Blume) fruit; 2016. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322486756 10.5829/idosi.abr.2016.382.387 [DOI]
  • 13.Pant M, Lal A, Bisht P, Rani A. Elaeocarpus sphaericus: a tree with curative powers: an overview. Res J Med Plant. 2013;7(1):23–31. doi: 10.3923/rjmp.2013.23.31 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tambun R, Alexander V, Ginting Y. Performance comparison of maceration method, soxhletation method, and microwave-assisted extraction in extracting active compounds from soursop leaves (Annona muricata): a review. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng. 2021;1122(1):012095. doi: 10.1088/1757-899x/1122/1/012095 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Author C, Linga Rao M, Savithramma N, Suhrulatha D. Screening of medicinal plants for secondary metabolites. Middle East J Sci Res. 2011;8(3):579–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Khan S, Khan T, Shah AJ. Total phenolic and flavonoid contents and antihypertensive effect of the crude extract and fractions of Calamintha vulgaris. Phytomedicine. 2018;47:174–83. doi: 10.1016/j.phymed.2018.04.046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Meda A, Lamien CE, Romito M, Millogo J, Nacoulma OG. Determination of the total phenolic, flavonoid and proline contents in Burkina Fasan honey, as well as their radical scavenging activity. Food Chem. 2005;91(3):571–7. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.10.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Elmastas M, Isildak O, Turkekul I, Temur N. Determination of antioxidant activity and antioxidant compounds in wild edible mushrooms. J Food Compos Anal. 2007;20(3–4):337–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2006.07.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Telagari M, Hullatti K. In-vitro α-amylase and α-glucosidase inhibitory activity of Adiantum caudatum Linn. and Celosia argentea Linn. extracts and fractions. Indian J Pharmacol. 2015;47(4):425–9. doi: 10.4103/0253-7613.161270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Khadayat K, Marasini BP, Gautam H, Ghaju S, Parajuli N. Evaluation of the alpha-amylase inhibitory activity of Nepalese medicinal plants used in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Clin Phytosci. 2020;6(1). doi: 10.1186/s40816-020-00179-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wybenga DR, Pileggi VJ, Dirstine PH, Di Giorgio J. Direct manual determination of serum total cholesterol with a single stable reagent. Clin Chem. 1970;16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.McGowan MW, Artiss JD, Strandbergh DR, Zak B. A peroxidase-coupled method for the colorimetric determination of serum triglycerides. Clin Chem. 1983;29(3):538–42. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/29.3.538 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hassid WZ, Abraham S. [7] Chemical procedures for analysis of polysaccharides. Methods Enzymol [Internet]. 1957. [cited 2025 Aug 11];3(C):34–50. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0076687957033455 10.1016/S0076-6879(57)03345-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kim S, Bolton EE. PubChem: a large-scale public chemical database for drug discovery. In: Open access databases and datasets for drug discovery. Wiley; 2023. p. 41–66. doi: 10.1002/9783527830497.ch2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hanwell MD, Curtis DE, Lonie DC, Vandermeersch T, Zurek E, Hutchison GR. Avogadro: an advanced semantic chemical editor, visualization, and analysis platform. J Cheminform. 2012;4(1):17. doi: 10.1186/1758-2946-4-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Maurus R, Begum A, Williams LK, Fredriksen JR, Zhang R, Withers SG, et al. Alternative catalytic anions differentially modulate human alpha-amylase activity and specificity. Biochemistry. 2008;47(11):3332–44. doi: 10.1021/bi701652t [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yamamoto K, Miyake H, Kusunoki M, Osaki S. Crystal structures of isomaltase from Saccharomyces cerevisiae and in complex with its competitive inhibitor maltose. FEBS J. 2010;277(20):4205–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07810.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell DS, et al. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem. 2009;30(16):2785–91. doi: 10.1002/jcc.21256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Trott O, Olson AJ. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem. 2010;31(2):455–61. doi: 10.1002/jcc.21334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tian W, Chen C, Lei X, Zhao J, Liang J. CASTp 3.0: computed atlas of surface topography of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(W1):W363-7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Biovia DS. Discovery studio visualizer. San Diego (CA): Dassault Systèmes; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Van Der Spoel D, Lindahl E, Hess B, Groenhof G, Mark AE, Berendsen HJC. GROMACS: fast, flexible, and free. J Comput Chem. 2005;26(16):1701–18. doi: 10.1002/jcc.20291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Huang J, MacKerell AD Jr. CHARMM36 all-atom additive protein force field: validation based on comparison to NMR data. J Comput Chem. 2013;34(25):2135–45. doi: 10.1002/jcc.23354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zoete V, Cuendet MA, Grosdidier A, Michielin O. SwissParam: a fast force field generation tool for small organic molecules. J Comput Chem. 2011;32(11):2359–68. doi: 10.1002/jcc.21816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K. VMD: Visual Molecular Dynamics. 1996. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 36.Valdés-Tresanco MS, Valdés-Tresanco ME, Valiente PA, Moreno E. gmx_MMPBSA: a new tool to perform end-state free energy calculations with GROMACS. J Chem Theory Comput. 2021;17(10):6281–91. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kumari R, Kumar R, Lynn A. G-mmpbsa - A GROMACS tool for high-throughput MM-PBSA calculations. J Chem Inf Model. 2014;54(7):1951–62. doi: 10.1021/ci500020m [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Banerjee P, Kemmler E, Dunkel M, Preissner R. ProTox 3.0: a webserver for the prediction of toxicity of chemicals. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024;52(W1):W513–20. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkae303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Pires DEV, Blundell TL, Ascher DB. pkCSM: Predicting small-molecule pharmacokinetic and toxicity properties using graph-based signatures. J Med Chem. 2015;58(9):4066–72. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b00104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Daina A, Michielin O, Zoete V. SwissADME: A free web tool to evaluate pharmacokinetics, drug-likeness and medicinal chemistry friendliness of small molecules. Sci Rep. 2017;7. doi: 10.1038/srep42717 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fu L, Shi S, Yi J, Wang N, He Y, Wu Z. ADMETlab 3.0: an updated comprehensive online ADMET prediction platform enhanced with broader coverage, improved performance, API functionality and decision support. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024;52(W1):W422-31. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkae236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Talukdar N, Chakraborty R, Dutta AM, Das K. Screening of phytochemicals, antioxidant and inhibitory effect on alpha-amylase by ethanolic extract of Elaeocarpus ganitrus (bark). Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2017;8(12):5270–5. doi: 10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.8(12).5270-75 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bhatt BD, Dahal P. Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Efficacy of Various Solvent Extracts of Seed of Rudrakshya (Elaeocarpus ganitrus) from Ilam District of Nepal. J Nepal Chem Soc. 2019;40:11–8. doi: 10.3126/jncs.v40i0.27272 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Deepika R, Singh J, Kaur N. Comparison of total phenolic content, total flavonoid content, antioxidant capacity and free radical scavenging activity of leaves of Elaeocarpus. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(2):2846–54. doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2018.702.347 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Utami R, Khalid N, Sukari MA, Rahmani M, Abdul AB, Dachriyanus. Phenolic contents, antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of Elaeocarpus floribundus Blume. Pak J Pharm Sci. 2013;26(2):245–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dlamini ZM, Chen CR, Dlamini BS, Chang CI. In vitro antioxidant, antiglycation, α-glucosidase and α-amylase inhibitory activities of extracts and solvent fractions of Elaeocarpus serratus L. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol. 2023;52. doi: 10.1016/j.bcab.2023.102827 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hule AK, Shah AS, Gambhire MN, Juvekar AR. An evaluation of the antidiabetic effects of Elaeocarpus ganitrus in experimental animals. Indian J Pharmacol. 2011;43(1):56–9. doi: 10.4103/0253-7613.75671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Manoharan K, P Chitra PC. Hypoglycemic and hypolipidemic activities of ethanolic extract of Elaeocarpus tectorius (Lour.) Poir. leaves in streptozotocin- nicotinamide induced diabetic rats. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2022;15(2):1167–78. doi: 10.13005/bpj/2453 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bae GY, Lim MW, Eom SW, Lee HL, Lee DY, Oh YJ. Exploring the potential of Elaeocarpus sylvestris as natural biomaterials: in vitro antimicrobial and antioxidant properties, chemical constituents, and its effect on skin fibroblasts. Plant Biotechnol Rep. 2023;17(5):637–51. doi: 10.1007/s11816-023-00858-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ogundele AV, Haldar S, Yadav A, Das AM. Elaeocarpus floribundus Bl. seeds as a new source of bioactive compounds with promising antioxidant and antimicrobial properties. Z Naturforsch C J Biosci. 2021;76(3):141–6. doi: 10.1515/znc-2020-0114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Okselni T, Efdi M. Isolation, identification and α-glucosidase inhibition evaluation of a phenolic compound from Elaeocarpus mastersii King leaves. E3S Web Conf. 2024;503:07004. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202450307004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Khushwaha J, Joshi A, Sharma S, Das SK. Phytochemical characterization of bio-active compounds in hydroethanolic extract of Elaeocarpus ganitrus leaves using HPLC, LC-MS, and HPTLC analyses [Internet]; 2023. Available from: 10.1101/2023.10.12.562125 [DOI]
  • 53.Al-Majmaie S, Nahar L, Sharples GP, Wadi K, Sarker SD. Isolation and antimicrobial activity of rutin and its derivatives from Ruta chalepensis (Rutaceae) growing in Iraq. Rec Nat Prod. 2018;13(1):64–70. doi: 10.25135/rnp.74.18.03.250 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Zhang S, Zheng-Ming T, Zhang Y, Zheng-Wu S, Guo-Wei Q. Chemical constituents from the stems and leaves of Elaeocarpus glabripetalus. 2010;8(1):21. 10.3724/SP [DOI]
  • 55.Wu L, Wu J, Chen SP, Li ZJ, Zhang J, Yuan E. Chemical constituents of the twigs of Elaeocarpus sylvestris. Chem Nat Compd. 2019;55(2):324–6. doi: 10.1007/s10600-019-02679-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lee YG, Park DW, Kwon JE, Kim H, Kang SC. Elaeocarpus sylvestris var. ellipticus extract and its major component, geraniin, inhibit herpes simplex virus-1 replication. Plants. 2024;13(11). doi: 10.3390/plants13111437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Habibah NA, Nugrahaningsih N, Safitri S, Musafa F, Wijawati N. Profile of flavonoid and antioxidant activity in cell suspension culture of Elaeocarpus grandiflorus. Biosaintifika. 2021;13(3):328–35. doi: 10.15294/biosaintifika.v13i3.32715 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Basnet S, Ghimire MP, Lamichhane TR, Adhikari R, Adhikari A. Identification of potential human pancreatic α-amylase inhibitors from natural products by molecular docking, MM/GBSA calculations, MD simulations, and ADMET analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(3):e0275765. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Karki D, Phunyal A, Lamichhane TR, Rayamajhi A, Sapkota A, Nyaupane H, et al. Chemical profiling, in-vitro and in silico α -glucosidase inhibition, antioxidant and antibacterial activities of Hypotrachyna cirrhata (Fr.) Hale ex Sipman. All Life. 2024;17(1). doi: 10.1080/26895293.2024.2424894 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Martínez L. Automatic identification of mobile and rigid substructures in molecular dynamics simulations and fractional structural fluctuation analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0119264. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119264 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Waiba A, Phunyal A, Lamichhane TR, Ghimire MP, Nyaupane H, Phuyal A, et al. Computational insights into flavonoids inhibition of dengue virus envelope protein: ADMET profiling, molecular docking, dynamics, PCA, and end-state free energy calculations. PLoS One. 2025;20(7):e0327862. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0327862 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lobanov MI, Bogatyreva NS, Galzitskaia OV. Radius of gyration is indicator of compactness of protein structure. Mol Biol (Mosk). 2008;42(4):701–6. doi: 10.1134/s0026893308040195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Chikalov I, Yao P, Moshkov M, Latombe J-C. Learning probabilistic models of hydrogen bond stability from molecular dynamics simulation trajectories. BMC Bioinform. 2011;12 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S34. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-S1-S34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gyawali K, Maharjan R, Sharma BP, Bhatt DP, Sharma ML, Pandey SK, et al. Synthesis, characterization, and antimicrobial activity of hydrazino triazole–based Schiff base ligands and their oxovanadium (IV) complexes and the inhibitory roles against SARS-CoV-2 using molecular docking, dynamics, and ADMET profiling. Appl Organomet Chem. 2025. doi: 10.1002/aoc.70117 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Lipinski CA. Lead- and drug-like compounds: the rule-of-five revolution. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2004;1(4):337–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ddtec.2004.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Phunyal A, Adhikari A, Adhikari Subin J. In silico exploration of potent flavonoids for dengue therapeutics. PLoS One. 2024;19(12):e0301747. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Gyawali K, Maharjan R, Acharya A, Khanal M, Ghimire MP, Lamichhane TR. Identification of catechin as main protease inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant using molecular docking, molecular dynamics, PCA, DCCM, MM/GBSA and ADMET profiling. Nat Prod Res. 2024. doi: 10.1080/14786419.2024.2421907 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jorddy Neves Cruz

26 Dec 2025

-->PONE-D-25-60521-->-->Biochemical and Antidiabetic Properties of Elaeocarpus angustifolius Blume: In vitro, In vivo, and In silico Insights-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Adhikari,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 09 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jorddy Neves Cruz

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The abstract should be further improved, along with the conclusion, and the title did not describe the whole picture of the manuscript.

add more recent related reported work and highlight the gap of the current study in abstract part

Reviewer #2: Article review

Title: Biochemical and Antidiabetic Properties of Elaeocarpus angustifolius Blume: In vitro, In vivo, and In silico Insights.

The manuscript is skilfully written. The article evaluates the antidiabetic potential of Elaeocarpus angustifolius bark extract through phytochemical, in vitro, in vivo, and computational analyses, structured across standard scientific sections with varying strengths in clarity and depth. While the study provides valuable insights and a robust dataset, several weaknesses and limitations can be discerned in its different components. The results can be presented in a more suitable manner. In summary, certain remarks ought to be taken into account.

Title and abstract

The title adequately reflects the study content. Please add from Kirtipur, Kathmandu .

The abstract concisely outlines objectives, methods, key results (e.g., IC50 values for α-glucosidase 0.79 μg/mL, glucose reduction 21%, corilagin docking ]10.3 kcal/mol), and implications for drug development, effectively highlighting antioxidant/antidiabetic activities. Strengths include quantitative highlights and logical flow from in vitro to in silico data. The abstract provides a dense summary of methods and results but lacks precision in quantifying key outcomes, such as exact reductions in glucose levels or statistical significance beyond p<0.01 mentions. It overstates findings by claiming "potent" inhibition without contextualizing IC50 values against standards like acarbose, potentially misleading readers on comparative efficacy. Additionally, it prematurely highlights Corilagin as the "most active compound" without briefly noting limitations like in vivo dose translation.

1. Introduction:

The introduction provides diabetes epidemiology (e.g., projections to 552 million by 2030 M, complications, synthetic drug limitations, and plant-based rationale, justifying Elaeocarpus study via traditional uses and phytochemical gaps. It clearly states aims (antioxidant/antidiabetic assays plus in silico support). Shortcomings include outdated statistics (e.g., 2013 data), repetitive prevalence claims, and superficial traditional evidence without cultural specificity beyond Nepal.

The introduction compiles diabetes statistics from outdated sources (e.g., projections to 2030 from 2013 data) without updating to current global prevalence figures, undermining relevance given diabetes cases exceeded 500 million by 2021. It lists complications and synthetic drug side effects generically without specific evidence tying them to the plant's context, weakening the rationale for studying Elaeocarpus angustifolius. Traditional uses are asserted broadly (e.g., for diabetes in Nepal) but lack cited ethnographic studies, relying on vague references that do not justify the research gap convincingly

2. Materials and Methods

Detailed subsections cover chemicals (Sigma-Aldrich sources), plant collection (voucher KATHI 64207), and neonatal STZ rat model (n=6/group, 28 days), extractions (methanol maceration, 12.4% yield), assays (DPPH, enzyme inhibition with formulas), LC/MS (Thermo/SCIEX, gradient specified), and computations (AutoDock Vina, GROMACS MDM. Strengths: Ethical approval, statistical tools (ANOVA, t-test, p<0.05M, reproducible protocols with references. Weaknesses: Incomplete details (e.g., STZ dose, assay modifications, no blinding/power analysis), formula errors (e.g., incomplete LDL equation), and single-fraction LC/MS limitation.

Plant extraction uses basic maceration without yield optimization or validation against advanced techniques like ultrasound-assisted extraction, limiting reproducibility. Animal model employs neonatal STZ induction for type-2 diabetes in adult rats, but details on litter size, sex distribution, or long-term hyperglycemia confirmation via OGTT thresholds are absent, risking variability. In vivo dosing (1.25 g/kg methanol extract) vastly exceeds typical herbal doses without fractionation for safety, and ethical approval cites a mismatched institution (Bangladesh vs. Nepal collection), raising procedural concerns. Computational methods mix tools (AutoDock Vina, GROMACS) without full parameter disclosure, such as grid box validation beyond CASTp or force field justification for ligands

3. Results

Results report phytochemicals (flavonoids, tannins present), TPC/TFC (182.73 mg GAE/g, 48.78 mg QE/g), IC50s (e.g., ethyl acetate DPPH 1.47 μg/mL vs. quercetin 4.87), in vivo changes (glucose -21%, glycogen 14.06 mg/mL), 13 LC/MS compounds (e.g., corilagin), and docking (corilagin -10.3 kcal/mol). Tables/figures (e.g., Table 1 masses, Fig. 1 glucose) support data with means±SD and p-values. Issues: Combined results/discussion blurs separation; missing raw curves, baselines, or multiple comparisons adjustments; contradictory weight data unclarified.

Phytochemical screening is qualitative only, with no quantification beyond TPC/TFC, missing opportunities to correlate specific compounds to activity via HPLC standardization. In vitro IC50 values for fractions vary widely (e.g., DCM poor at 16.97 µg/mL for α-glucosidase), but no dose response curves or replicates beyond mean±SD are shown, questioning reliability. In vivo data reports body weight decreases in extract group (p<0.001 vs. controls) without exploring toxicity, and glycogen assay uses outdated anthrone method prone to interference. LC/MS identifies 13 compounds but provides inconsistent RTs/mz (e.g., rutin/geraniin at similar times) without purity confirmation or standards

4. Discussion

Discussion integrates findings (e.g., corilagin stability via MD RMSD 1.47 Å) with prior Elaeocarpus studies, proposing mechanisms (e.g., non-competitive inhibition). Discussion repeats results with superficial comparisons to prior Elaeocarpus studies, ignoring contradictions like weaker in vivo effects vs. standards. It extrapolates Corilagin's docking/MD stability to "promising lead" despite ADMET flaws (3 Lipinski violations, immunotoxicity), without dose-response or selectivity data

5. Conclusion

Conclusions emphasize bark as "promising natural source." Flaws: Over-relies on comparisons without effect sizes; ignores limitations (e.g., small n, no toxicity); speculates drug potential sans ADMET details or human relevance. Overall, the article advances plant antidiabetic research but requires methodological refinements for higher impact. Conclusion advocates clinical validation but overlooks scalability issues like bark sourcing sustainability and lacks nuance on side effects beyond synthetics

References

o The reference list is relevant but does not include recent works to provide balanced context.

o There is an absence of discussion relating results to the results to reference, recent, or even potentially conflicting literature or alternative hypotheses.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript presents a comprehensive in vitro, in vivo, and in silico investigation into the antidiabetic potential of Elaeocarpus angustifolius bark. The study is well-motivated, the experimental design is generally sound, and the findings are promising. However, several critical issues must be addressed to strengthen the manuscript's validity, clarity, and compliance with journal standards before it can be considered for publication.

Major Revisions Required:

1. The ethics statement on page 3 notes approval from the Bangladesh University of Health Sciences (BUHS) ERC. However, the in vivo study was conducted on rats in Nepal, while the approving body is in Bangladesh. Please clarify: Where exactly were the animals housed and the experiments performed? Provide the name and location of the animal facility.

2. Clarify the anesthesia/euthanasia method: The manuscript states anesthesia was performed using halothane. Please specify the method of euthanasia at the end of the experiment (e.g., overdose of anesthetic, cervical dislocation, etc.) as required by PLOS ONE's animal research guidelines (page 4 of the submission).

3. The Methods section (page 12) lists five groups but only names four (Group 1: NWC, Group 2: DWC, Group 3: GT, Group 5: Extract treated). There is a numbering error (Group 4 is missing). Please correct the group numbering and labeling throughout the manuscript and figures for consistency.

4. Justify the extract dosage: The dose of 1.25 g/kg is very high. Please provide a rationale for this specific dose (e.g., based on preliminary toxicity studies or literature). A brief discussion on the feasibility of translating such a high dose to human use should be added to the Discussion or Conclusion.

5. Clarify statistical tests: The legend for Figures 1 and 2 states a paired sample t-test was used for post-hoc comparison after ANOVA. This is unconventional. For comparing multiple groups, appropriate post-hoc tests (e.g., Tukey's, Bonferroni) should be used following ANOVA. Please specify the exact post-hoc test used and ensure it is appropriate for the experimental design.

6. For the in vitro enzyme inhibition assays (α-glucosidase and α-amylase), specify the positive control concentration range used alongside the samples. Currently, only the IC₅₀ of acarbose is given. This is necessary to validate the assay performance under the experimental conditions used for the extracts.

7. The Financial Disclosure section (page 2) states "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work." However, the Acknowledgements section (page 37) thanks the Asian Network of Research on Antidiabetic Plants (ANRAP) for "financial support." This is a direct contradiction. The authors must correct the Financial Disclosure statement to accurately reflect any and all sources of funding or material support received for this study, as per PLOS ONE policy.

8. Abstract: "significant progress in the discovery of antidiabetic drugs had been made" – change "had" to "has."

9. Page 23, Line 342: "The results (S4 Table) indicated..." – When referencing supporting information, briefly state the key finding in the main text (e.g., "The methanol extract exhibited the highest inhibition... (S4 Table)").

10. Discussion: The discussion could be strengthened by more directly comparing the potency (IC₅₀ values) of Corilagin's in silico binding with the observed in vitro activity of the ethyl acetate fraction. A sentence or two on this would better integrate the computational and experimental findings.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:Amal El Rherabi

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: revision.docx

pone.0349796.s014.docx (16.5KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 Jun 8;21(6):e0349796. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0349796.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Feb 2026

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

Response: We have reviewed the reference list and named the associated files to ensure they are complete and correct according to the journal.

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

Response: We have revised the Methods section to include additional details regarding fieldwork permits. The full name of the authority that approved access to the field site has now been clearly stated, along with the relevant permit information.

3. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Response: All citations have now been carefully reviewed and corrected. References are appropriately placed in the text and correspond accurately to the cited statements throughout the manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Response: Done

Reviewer #1: The abstract should be further improved, along with the conclusion, and the title did not describe the whole picture of the manuscript.

add more recent related reported work and highlight the gap of the current study in abstract part.

Response: Done

Reviewer #2: We appreciate Reviewer 2's insightful comments. Your concern has been addressed in the following ways:

1.Introduction:

The introduction provides diabetes epidemiology (e.g., projections to 552 million by 2030 M, complications, synthetic drug limitations, and plant-based rationale, justifying Elaeocarpus study via traditional uses and phytochemical gaps. It clearly states aims (antioxidant/antidiabetic assays plus in silico support). Shortcomings include outdated statistics (e.g., 2013 data), repetitive prevalence claims, and superficial traditional evidence without cultural specificity beyond Nepal.

The introduction compiles diabetes statistics from outdated sources (e.g., projections to 2030 from 2013 data) without updating to current global prevalence figures, undermining relevance given diabetes cases exceeded 500 million by 2021. It lists complications and synthetic drug side effects generically without specific evidence tying them to the plant's context, weakening the rationale for studying Elaeocarpus angustifolius. Traditional uses are asserted broadly (e.g., for diabetes in Nepal) but lack cited ethnographic studies, relying on vague references that do not justify the research gap convincingly

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The manuscript has been revised to include updated data on the global prevalence of diabetes with appropriate and recent references. In addition, the potential usefulness of plant extracts as alternative or complementary therapies has been discussed. These revisions help to better define the existing research gap and clarify the relevance of the present study.

2.Materials and Methods

Detailed subsections cover chemicals (Sigma-Aldrich sources), plant collection (voucher KATHI 64207), and neonatal STZ rat model (n=6/group, 28 days), extractions (methanol maceration, 12.4% yield), assays (DPPH, enzyme inhibition with formulas), LC/MS (Thermo/SCIEX, gradient specified), and computations (AutoDock Vina, GROMACS MDM. Strengths: Ethical approval, statistical tools (ANOVA, t-test, p<0.05M, reproducible protocols with references. Weaknesses: Incomplete details (e.g., STZ dose, assay modifications, no blinding/power analysis), formula errors (e.g., incomplete LDL equation), and single-fraction LC/MS limitation.

Plant extraction uses basic maceration without yield optimization or validation against advanced techniques like ultrasound-assisted extraction, limiting reproducibility. Animal model employs neonatal STZ induction for type-2 diabetes in adult rats, but details on litter size, sex distribution, or long-term hyperglycemia confirmation via OGTT thresholds are absent, risking variability. In vivo dosing (1.25 g/kg methanol extract) vastly exceeds typical herbal doses without fractionation for safety, and ethical approval cites a mismatched institution (Bangladesh vs. Nepal collection), raising procedural concerns. Computational methods mix tools (AutoDock Vina, GROMACS) without full parameter disclosure, such as grid box validation beyond CASTp or force field justification for ligands

Response: The streptozotocin (STZ) dose used for induction of diabetes has been clearly specified in the revised manuscript. In addition, the formula used for the calculation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol has been corrected.

Regarding the extraction and phytochemical analysis methods, ultrasound-assisted extraction and LC–MS/MS analysis could not be performed due to limited availability of resources and instrumentation. However, conventional extraction and biochemical evaluation methods were appropriately applied and are commonly used for preliminary pharmacological investigations.

All in vivo experiments were conducted in accordance with the ARRIVE guidelines, and this compliance has been explicitly stated in the revised manuscript.

Computational methods have been revised and written with full parameters. While grid box validation beyond the CASTp has been added to the revised manuscript. Furthermore, we have justified using the CHARMM27 force field

3. Results

report phytochemicals (flavonoids, tannins present), TPC/TFC (182.73 mg GAE/g, 48.78 mg QE/g), IC50s (e.g., ethyl acetate DPPH 1.47 μg/mL vs. quercetin 4.87), in vivo changes (glucose -21%, glycogen 14.06 mg/mL), 13 LC/MS compounds (e.g., corilagin), and docking (corilagin -10.3 kcal/mol). Tables/figures (e.g., Table 1 masses, Fig. 1 glucose) support data with means±SD and p-values. Issues: Combined results/discussion blurs separation; missing raw curves, baselines, or multiple comparisons adjustments; contradictory weight data unclarified.

Phytochemical screening is qualitative only, with no quantification beyond TPC/TFC, missing opportunities to correlate specific compounds to activity via HPLC standardization. In vitro IC50 values for fractions vary widely (e.g., DCM poor at 16.97 µg/mL for α-glucosidase), but no dose response curves or replicates beyond mean±SD are shown, questioning reliability. In vivo data reports body weight decreases in extract group (p<0.001 vs. controls) without exploring toxicity, and glycogen assay uses outdated anthrone method prone to interference. LC/MS identifies 13 compounds but provides inconsistent RTs/mz (e.g., rutin/geraniin at similar times) without purity confirmation or standards

Response: Due to limited resources, the phytochemical evaluation of the extract was restricted to the determination of total phenolic content (TPC) and total flavonoid content (TFC).

Similarly, comprehensive toxicity studies and tissue glycogen estimation could not be conducted because of resource constraints

Regarding the LC–MS analysis, rutin and geraniin were detected using two ionization modes, which resulted in differences in retention times. This issue has now been corrected, and the revised manuscript accurately reflects the LC–MS data and corresponding retention times.

4.Discussion

Discussion integrates findings (e.g., corilagin stability via MD RMSD 1.47 Å) with prior Elaeocarpus studies, proposing mechanisms (e.g., non-competitive inhibition). Discussion repeats results with superficial comparisons to prior Elaeocarpus studies, ignoring contradictions like weaker in vivo effects vs. standards. It extrapolates Corilagin's docking/MD stability to "promising lead" despite ADMET flaws (3 Lipinski violations, immunotoxicity), without dose-response or selectivity data

Response: We have substantially revised the Discussion section to improve its depth, balance, and critical interpretation of the results.

5.Conclusion

Conclusions emphasize bark as "promising natural source." Flaws: Over-relies on comparisons without effect sizes; ignores limitations (e.g., small n, no toxicity); speculates drug potential sans ADMET details or human relevance. Overall, the article advances plant antidiabetic research but requires methodological refinements for higher impact. Conclusion advocates clinical validation but overlooks scalability issues like bark sourcing sustainability and lacks nuance on side effects beyond synthetics

References

o The reference list is relevant but does not include recent works to provide balanced context.

o There is an absence of discussion relating results to the results to reference, recent, or even potentially conflicting literature or alternative hypotheses.

Response: The Conclusions have been revised to present a more nuanced and cautious interpretation.

All the references have been reviewed and corrected carefully with more recent work that supports our findings.

Reviewer #3: We appreciate Reviewer 3's insightful comments. Your concern has been addressed in the following ways:

1. The ethics statement on page 3 notes approval from the Bangladesh University of Health Sciences (BUHS) ERC. However, the in vivo study was conducted on rats in Nepal, while the approving body is in Bangladesh. Please clarify: Where exactly were the animals housed and the experiments performed? Provide the name and location of the animal facility.

Response: Samples were collected from Kirtipur, Nepal. In vitro experiments were conducted in Nepal, whereas the sample was subsequently transported to Bangladesh for in vivo experimentation at Bangladesh University of Health Sciences, Dhaka Bangladesh.

2. Clarify the anesthesia/euthanasia method: The manuscript states anesthesia was performed using halothane. Please specify the method of euthanasia at the end of the experiment (e.g., overdose of anesthetic, cervical dislocation, etc.) as required by PLOS ONE's animal research guidelines (page 4 of the submission).

Response: Regarding animal ethics, we followed the ARRIVE guidelines. Halothane was administered at a dose of 1 mL/100 gm of body weight in rats.

3. The Methods section (page 12) lists five groups but only four names (Group 1: NWC, Group 2: DWC, Group 3: GT, Group 5: Extract treated). There is a numbering error (Group 4 is missing). Please correct the group numbering and labeling throughout the manuscript and figures for consistency.

Response: Done

4. Justify the extract dosage: The dose of 1.25 g/kg is very high. Please provide a rationale for this specific dose (e.g., based on preliminary toxicity studies or literature). A brief discussion on the feasibility of translating such a high dose to human use should be added to the Discussion or Conclusion.

Response: The administered dose (1.25 g/kg body weight) was selected based on prior literature (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaim.2023.100776) and was conducted in strict accordance with the ARRIVE guidelines. All experimental procedures were approved by the institutional animal ethics committee, and animal welfare was closely monitored throughout the study.

5. Clarify statistical tests: The legend for Figures 1 and 2 states a paired sample t-test was used for post-hoc comparison after ANOVA. This is unconventional. For comparing multiple groups, appropriate post-hoc tests (e.g., Tukey's, Bonferroni) should be used following ANOVA. Please specify the exact post-hoc test used and ensure it is appropriate for the experimental design.

Response: We acknowledge that more advanced statistical analyses could further strengthen the study. However, due to limited computational resources, we were unable to perform higher-level statistical tools at this stage. Nevertheless, the statistical methods employed are appropriate for the study design and data structure and are commonly used in similar studies.

6. For the in vitro enzyme inhibition assays (α-glucosidase and α-amylase), specify the positive control concentration range used alongside the samples. Currently, only the IC₅₀ of acarbose is given. This is necessary to validate the assay performance under the experimental conditions used for the extracts.

Response: Different concentration ranges were used for the α-glucosidase and α-amylase inhibition assays due to differences in enzyme sensitivity to the tested sample. α-glucosidase exhibited dose-dependent inhibition at lower concentrations (10–100 µg/mL), whereas α-amylase required higher concentrations (16.25–500 µg/mL) to achieve measurable inhibition.

7. The Financial Disclosure section (page 2) states "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work." However, the Acknowledgements section (page 37) thanks the Asian Network of Research on Antidiabetic Plants (ANRAP) for "financial support." This is a direct contradiction. The authors must correct the Financial Disclosure statement to accurately reflect all sources of funding or material support received for this study, as per PLOS ONE policy.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The in vivo experiment was conducted at Bangladesh University of Health Sciences, Dhaka, Bangladesh. The funding information related to this experiment was incorrectly included in the manuscript. This was an error, and the funding statement has now been corrected accordingly.

8. Abstract: "significant progress in the discovery of antidiabetic drugs had been made" – change "had" to "has."

Response: Done

9. Page 23, Line 342: "The results (S4 Table) indicated..." – When referencing supporting information, briefly state the key finding in the main text (e.g., "The methanol extract exhibited the highest inhibition... (S4 Table)").

Response: Done

10. Discussion: The discussion could be strengthened by more directly comparing the potency (IC₅₀ values) of Corilagin's in silico binding with the observed in vitro activity of the ethyl acetate fraction. A sentence or two on this would better integrate the computational and experimental findings.

Response: We have revised the Discussion section to directly integrate the computational and experimental findings.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0349796.s016.docx (25.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Jorddy Neves Cruz

6 May 2026

Biochemical and Antidiabetic Properties of Elaeocarpus angustifolius Blume: In vitro, In vivo, and In silico Insights

PONE-D-25-60521R1

Dear Dr. Adhikari,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jorddy Neves Cruz

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The manuscript title "Biochemical and Antidiabetic Properties of Elaeocarpus angustifolius Blume: In vitro, In vivo, and In silico Insights" can be accepted in the present form.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Jorddy Neves Cruz

PONE-D-25-60521R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Adhikari,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jorddy Neves Cruz

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The binding interaction between the initially docked co-crystallized ligand (yellow, obtained from the PDB) and the re-docked ligand (green) results in an RMSD below 2A°.

    (a) α-glucosidase, (b) α-amylase.

    (TIF)

    pone.0349796.s001.tif (76.9KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Calibration curve of standard gallic acid (TPC).

    (TIF)

    pone.0349796.s002.tif (50.8KB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Calibration curve of standard quercetin (TFC).

    (TIF)

    pone.0349796.s003.tif (47.8KB, tif)
    S4 Fig. LC-MS in positive ion- mode for ethylacetate fraction of E. angustifolius.

    (TIF)

    pone.0349796.s004.tif (186.4KB, tif)
    S5 Fig. LC-MS in negative ion- mode for ethylacetate fraction of E.angustifolius.

    (TIF)

    pone.0349796.s005.tif (101KB, tif)
    S1 Table. Qualitative phytochemical analysis of the methanol extract of E. angustifolius.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0349796.s006.docx (14.8KB, docx)
    S2 Table. In vitro antioxidant activity of extract and different fractions of E. angustifolius.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0349796.s007.docx (14.3KB, docx)
    S3 Table. In vitro α-glucosidase enzyme inhibition assay of E. angustifolius.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0349796.s008.docx (14.4KB, docx)
    S4 Table. In vitro α-amylase enzyme inhibition assay of E. angustifolius bark extract and fractions.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0349796.s009.docx (14.6KB, docx)
    S5 Table. Effect of E. angustifolius bark methanol extract on the body weight of STZ-induced diabetic rats.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0349796.s010.docx (15.9KB, docx)
    S6 Table. Effect of E. angustifolius methanol extract on serum glucose level.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0349796.s011.docx (15.3KB, docx)
    S7 Table. Effect of methanol extract of E. angustifolius on lipid profile.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0349796.s012.docx (17.6KB, docx)
    S8 Table. Effect of E. angustifolius methanol extract on hepatic glycogen content.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0349796.s013.docx (14.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: revision.docx

    pone.0349796.s014.docx (16.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0349796.s016.docx (25.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are publicly available in figshare. Manuscript data doi: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31143787 Supporting informationdoi: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31143856.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES