. 2020 Apr 19;6(4):e03708. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03708

Table 3.

Pharmacological activity of extracts, fractions and isolated compounds from Ziziphus mucronata.

Activity investigated	Tested plant material	Model used	Tested doses	Control(s) used	Activity and notable results	Experimental evidence	References used
Antibacterial activity	Leaves, twigs and stem bark, Petroleum ether, dichloromethane, ethanol and ethyl acetate extracts.	Micro-dilution assay	50 mg/ml diluted	None reported	The petroleum ether extract of the stem bark revealed MIC value of 0.4 mg/ml against Pseudomonas aeruginosa.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[134]
	Stem bark and leaves, Aqueous, hexane and methanol extracts.	Micro-dilution assay	100 mg/ml serially diluted	Positive control: Neomycin	Methanol extract of the leaf revealed a lowest MIC value of 0.2 mg/ml against Staphylococcus aureus.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[135]
	Leaves, aqueous and 1:1 (methanol: dichloromethane) extracts.	Micro-dilution assay	32 mg/ml serially diluted	Positive control: Ciprofloxacin	The 1:1 (methanol: dichloromethane) extract revealed a MIC values of 0.01 mg/ml against Brevibacterium agri and 1.0 mg/ml against Escherichia coli, Propionibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidirmidis.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[138, 139]
	Leaves, Hexane, dichloromethane, chloroform, ethyl acetate, ethanol and methanol extracts.	Micro-dilution assay	10 mg/ml diluted	Positive control: None reported	Hexane and chloroform extracts revealed MIC values of 0.21 and 0.27 mg/ml against Staphylococcus aureus.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[140]
	Leaves, Acetone extracts.	Micro-dilution assay	10 mg/ml diluted	Positive control: Ampicillin	The extract revealed a MIC value of 0.53 mg/ml against both Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[141, 142]
	Stem bark, Dichloromethane and 90 % methanol extracts.	Micro-dilution assay	20 mg/ml serially diluted	Positive control: Neomycin	The 90 % methanol extract revealed MIC value of 1.25 mg/ml against Pseudomonas aeruginosa.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[149]
	Leaves, Acetone extract.	Agar well diffusion assay	20 mg/ml	Positive control: Neomycin	Acetone and methanol extracts of the leaves revealed a positive inhibition against Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia and strains of Staphylococcus aureus	Positive evidence.	[119]
	Leaves and roots, Methanol extracts.	Agar well diffusion and Micro-dilution assays	10 mg/ml	Positive controls: Ampicillin, amoxicillin, tetramycin and gentamycin.	The methanol extract from both leaves and roots revealed a zone of inhibition of 3.25 and 5.0 mm against Escherichia coli and Streptococcus Group A strain respectively. Roots extract exhibited a MIC value of 2.5 mg/ml against Staphylococcus aureus.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[120]
	Roots and leaves, Aqueous extracts.	Disc diffusion assay and Micro-dilution method.	10 mg/ml	Positive control: Amoxyllin, tetramycin and gentamycin.	Aqueous extract of the root exhibited zone of inhibition of 5.0 mm against Streptococcus Group A, while the leaf extract revealed MIC value of 1.25 mg/ml against similar bacterial strain.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[125]
	Stem bark and leaves, Aqueous and 1:1 methanol: dichloromethane	Micro-dilution method.	A concentration of 64 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Ciprofloxacin.	Aqueous extract from the stem bark revealed a MIC of 1.0 mg/ml against both Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Brevibacterium agri.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[143]
	Root bark, Aqueous extract	Disc diffusion and Time-log kill methods.	Concentrations ranging from 200 to 1000 μg/ml.	Positive control: None reported.	The extract did not inhibit the growth of both Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa at highest concentration tested.	Inconclusive evidence, not dose dependent.	[122]
	Stem bark and leaves, Aqueous and 1:1 methanol: dichloromethane	Micro-dilution method.	A concentration of 32 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Ciprofloxacin.	Organic extracts from the leaves revealed a MIC value of 1.0 mg/ml against three bacterial strains such as Streptococcus sanguis, Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[145]
	Leaves, Ethyl acetate and chloroform extracts.	Disc Diffusion method.	A concentration of 2.5 mg/disc.	Positive control: Erythromycin	No activity observed	Negative evidence, not dose dependent	[121]
	Leaves and stem bark, Aqueous and 80 % methanol extracts.	Disc diffusion method	A concentration of 100 mg residue/ml.	Positive control: Neomycin.	Methanol extract of the leaves at 1 mg/ml revealed antibacterial activity of 0.30 relative control drug at 200-500 μg/ml.	Positive evidence, Not dose dependent.	[118]
	Stem bark, Aqueous extract.	Micro-dilution method.	Maximum concentration of 4 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Gentamycin sulphate, vancomycin hydrochloride, penicillin g, imipinem, ampicillin and chloramphenicol.	The extract did not reveal any inhibition at highest concentration tested against clinical strains of Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus agalactiae, Salmonella enterica, Klebsiella pneumonia and Escherichia coli.	Inconclusive evidence, not dose dependence	[150]
	Roots, Stem bark and leaves, 1:1 methanol:acetone extracts	Micro-dilution method.	A concentration of 64 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Coprofloxacin. Negative control: DMSO	The leaves revealed a MIC value of 0.5 mg/ml against Moraxella catarrhalis.	Positive evidence, dose dependence	[190]
	Roots, Aqueous extract	Micro-dilution method.	A concentration of 50 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Coprofloxacin.	Aqueous extract revealed a MIC value of 0.19 against Staphylococcus aureus at 15 minutes boiling time and 1.56 mg/ml against Neisseria gonorrhoea at 0, 15 and 20 minutes boiling time intervals.	Positive evidence, dose dependence	[137]
	Leaves, ethanol, dichloromethane, hexane, aqueous and methanol extracts.	Micro-dilution method.	A concentration of 50 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Gentamycin and streptomycin.	The dichloromethane extract revealed a MIC value of 0.08 and 0.13 mg/ml against methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Clostridium tetani respectively.	Positive evidence, dose dependence	[90]
Anti-mycobacterial activity	Leaves, acetone extract	Micro-dilution method.	10 mg/ml serially diluted	Positive control: Rifampicin and isoniazid	The extract revealed a MIC value of 0.156 mg/ml against Mycobacterium tuberculosis (pathogenic strain TB8104) and 2.5 mg/ml against Mycobacterium fortuitum and Mycobacterium aurum.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[144]
	Stem bark, Aqueous, ethanol, methanol and acetone extracts.	Micro-dilution method.	A highest concentration of 100 μg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Rifampicin, ethambutol, streptomycin and isoniazid	Acetone extract from stem bark exhibited MIC value of 50 μg/ml against two different Mycobacterium strains.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[136]
	Leaves, ethanol, dichloromethane, hexane, aqueous and methanol extracts.	Micro-dilution method.	A concentration of 50 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Gentamycin and streptomycin.	Dichloromethane extract exhibited a MIC value of <0.156 mg/ml against Mycobacterium terrae.	Positive evidence, dose dependence	[90]
	Stem bark, Aqueous extract.	Micro-dilution method.	A highest concentration of 500 μg/ml.	Positive control: Rifampicin and ethambutol dihydrochloride.	The extract revealed MIC value of >500 μg/ml against pathogenic Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37 strain.	Inconclusive evidence, dose dependence.	[150]
Antifungal activity	Stem bark and leaves, Aqueous and 1:1 methanol: dichloromethane	Micro-dilution method.	A concentration of 64 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Amphotericin B.	The aqueous extract of the stem revealed a MIC value of 2.0 mg/ml against Trichophyton rubrum.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[143]
	Roots and leaves, Aqueous extracts.	Disc diffusion assay and Micro-dilution method.	10 mg/ml	Positive control: Amphotericin B.	The aqueous extract of roots exhibited zone of inhibition of 2.75 and 3.75 mm against Candida albicans and Aspergillus niger respectively, while aqueous extract of leaves exhibited 2.75 mm against both fungal stains.	Positive evidence.	[125]
	Roots, methanol extract.	Agar diffusion	1 g extract diluted with media	Positive control: Ketoconazole	The extract revealed a zone of inhibition of 14.45 mm against Aspergillus fumigatus after 11 days incubation period.	Positive evidence.	[124]
	Stem bark, Acetone extract.	Agar diffusion assay	Not specified	Positive control: Nystatin and Flucytosine.	The extract revealed zone of inhibition of 15 mm against Cryptococcus neoformans.	Positive evidence.	[127]
	Leaves, Ethanol, aqueous and boiled aqueous extracts.	Cup Plate method	100 mg/ml diluted 1:10, 1:100 and 1:500.	Negative control: Plates containing PDA.	Boiled aqueous extract revealed a stronger inhibition of 30 to 40 mm against Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus glaucus.	Positive evidence.	[123]
	Stem bark, Hexane extract.	Agar diffusion assay	2.5 to 20 % diluted with water	Positive control: 20 % fluconazole. Negative control: Distilled water.	A 20 % hexane extract exhibited a zone of inhibition of 6.0 and 7.5 mm against Cryptococcus neoformans and Candida albicans respectively.	Positive evidence.	[126]
	Leaves, ethanol, dichloromethane, hexane, aqueous and methanol extracts.	Micro-dilution method.	A concentration of 50 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Gentamycin and streptomycin.	Hexane extract revealed a MIC value of 1.25 mg/ml against Candida albicans.	Positive evidence, dose dependence	[90]
	Leaves, Aqueous and (1:1) Methanol: dichloromethane extracts.	Micro-dilution assay	32 mg.ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Amphotericin B.	The organic extract revealed a MIC value of 0.1 mg/ml against both Candida albicans and Trichophyton mentangrophytes.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[138, 139]
	Stem bark and leaves, Aqueous and 1:1 methanol: dichloromethane	Micro-dilution method.	A concentration of 32 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Amphotericin B.	Organic extract from the leaves revealed a MIC value of 1.0 mg/ml against Candida krusei.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[145]
	Stem bark and leaves, Aqueous and 1:1 methanol: dichloromethane	Micro-dilution method.	A concentration of 64 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Amphotericin B.	The organic leaf extract revealed a MIC value of 2.0 mg/ml against Trichophyton mentagrophytes.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[143]
	Roots, Stem bark and leaves, 1:1 methanol: acetone extracts	Micro-dilution method.	A concentration of 64 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Amphotericin B.	The leaves extract revealed a MIC value of 1.0 and 4.0 mg/ml against Cryptococccus neoformans and Candida albicans respectively.	Positive evidence, dose dependence	[130]
	Fruit, Aqueous extract and fractions FZ1 (Water) FZ2 (95:5 H₂O: acetonitrile) FZ3(90:10 H₂O: acetonitrile) FZ4 (85:15 H₂O: acetonitrile) FZ5 (10:90 H₂O: acetonitrile).	Direct contact of extract and spores in a test tube.	Fractions were tested at 1mg.ml	Positive control: Catechin and rutin. Negative control: Distilled water.	Fractions FZ2 and FZ3 revealed a 57.14 % inhibition of spores from Puccinia arachidis and 50 % inhibition of Phaeoisariopsis personata.	Positive evidence.	[151]
Anti-viral activity	Leaves, Aqueous and methanol extracts.	DNA polymerase and RNase H activities of HIV-1 RT.	400 μg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: DNA aptamer (ODN 93)	The methanol and aqueous extracts revealed LC₅₀ values of 75 and 81.5 μg/ml against RNase H and RDDP respectively.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[153]
	Stem bark, Aqueous extract.	Reverse transcriptase assay.	Two concentrations of 50 and 100 μg/ml	Positive control: Nevirapine.	Both concentrations revealed less than 20 % inhibition of enzyme.	Inconclusive evidence, Not dose dependent	[150]
Antioxidant activity	Roots, Methanol and ethyl acetate extracts.	ABTS and DPPH assays.	Concentrations ranging from 0.007 to 1.25 mg/ml.	Positive control: Trolox.	The methanol extract exhibited IC₅₀ value of 19 and 29 μg/ml against ABTS and DPPH respectively.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[102]
	Stem bark, roots and leaves, Aqueous, ethyl acetate and ethanol extracts.	DPPH, Hydroxyl radical and Nitric oxide radical assays.	Concentrations ranging from 15 to 240 μg/ml.	Positive control: Trolox, gallic acid and ascorbic acid.	Ethanol extract from the leaves, roots and stem bark exhibited IC₅₀ values of 1.68; 1.38 and 1.99 μg/ml against DPPH free radical.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[194]
	Stem bark, Acetone, ethanol and aqueous extracts.	DPPH, ABTS and FRAP.	Concentrations ranging from 0.02 to 0.1 mg/ml.	Positive control: BHT, rutin and ascorbic acid.	Ethanol and acetone extracts revealed potent IC₅₀ values of 31 and 32 μg/ml against ABTS free radical, while BHT exhibited 34 μg/ml.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[193]
	Leaves, ethanol and methanol extracts.	DPPH assay.	100 to 600 μg/ml.	Positive control: BHT.	The methanol extract revealed IC50 value of 45.19 μg/ml against DPPH.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[90]
	Fruits, Methanol, hexane, (1:1) methanol: chloroform, (1:1) hexane: chloroform extracts.	DPPH and ABTS assays.	Concentrations ranging from 2.5 to 100 μg/ml.	Positive control: Gallic acid and ascorbic acid.	The methanol extract revealed IC₅₀ value of 7.21 μg/ml against ABTS free radical.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[195]
	Stem bark, Aqueous and methanol extracts.	DPPH and ABTS assays.	Concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 300 μg/ml.	Positive control: Trolox	The methanol and aqueous extracts revealed IC₅₀ values of 11.18 and 20.78 μg/ml against ABTS respectively, while methanol extract revealed 89.81 μg/ml against DPPH.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[167]
	Leaves, Freshly collected, stored for 12 years and 16 years old extracts. The solvent used was 50 % methanol.	DPPH, β-Carotene assays.	Concentrations of 100 and 200 μg/ml serially diluted in DPPH and β-Carotene assay respectively.	Positive control: BHT and ascorbic acid. Negative control: 50 % methanol.	The aqueous extract of the 16 years old stored plant material revealed an IC₅₀ value of 18.1 μg/ml against DPPH.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[103]
	Fruits, leaves and stem bark, Acetone extracts.	DPPH and metal chelating activity.	Concentration of 100 μg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Trolox, EDTA and ascorbic acid.	Acetone extract of the stem bark revealed IC₅₀ value of 15.27 and 55.67 μg/ml against DPPH and Metal chelation activity respectively.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[160]
Anti-inflammatory and anti-neurodegenerative effect	Roots, Methanol and ethyl acetate extracts.	Ache assay, micro plate	Concentrations ranging from 0.007 to 0.16 mg/ml.	Positive control: Galantamine.	The ethyl acetate extract revealed IC₅₀ value of 1 μg/ml.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[102]
	Stem bark, Dichloromethane and 90 % methanol extracts.	COX-1 and COX-2 assays.	A single concentration of 250 μg/ml.	Positive control: Indomethacin.	The 90 % methanol extract revealed 66.5 and 66.2 % against COX-1 and COX-2 respectively.	Positive evidence, Not dose dependent.	[149]
	Leaves, Ethanol and aqueous extracts.	Cyclooxygenase assay.	A single concentration of 20 mg residue/ml.	Positive control: Indomethacin.	Ethanol extract of the leaves revealed 87 % inhibition of cyclooxygenase.	Positive evidence, Not dose dependent.	[207]
	Stem bark, Aqueous extract.	In Vitro against RAW 264.7 cells and Nitric oxide production.	Two concentrations of 50 and 100 μg/ml	Positive control: Aminoguanidine.	The extracts did not inhibit nitric oxide production and induce the activation of macrophages.	Positive evidence.	[150]
Anti-diabetic activity	Roots,n-butanol fraction.	Direct ingestion, In vivo against Sprague-Dawley 9SD rats.	Two concentrations, 150 ad 300 mg/kg.	Positive control: None reported	At 300 mg/kg, the fraction revealed a clear reduction in blood glucose, improved glucose tolerance ability and higher serum insulin.	Positive evidence. Not dose dependent.	[169]
	Stem bark, Aqueous and methanol extracts.	In vitro α-amylase and α-glucosidase, Glucose uptake test using HepG2, RIN-m5F and C2C12 cell lines in vitro.	Three concentrations of 15.6, 31.2 and 62.5 μg/ml were investigated	Positive control: Acarbose.	All the extracts revealed IC₅₀ values > 62.5 μg/ml in both α-amylase and α-glucosidase. Further, the extracts resulted in higher glucose uptake in C2C12 cells only.	Positive evidence, dose dependence	[167, 168]
	Roots, Four solvent fractions (from ethanol extract) such as aqueous, butanol, ethyl acetate and dichloromethane.	In vitro α-amylase and α-glucosidase	Four concentrations of 30, 60, 90, 120 and 240 μg/ml.	Positive control: Acarbose.	Butanol, aqueous, ethyl acetate and dichloromethane fractions revealed IC₅₀ values of 1.41, 4.38, 23.6 and 43.91 μg/ml against α-glucosidase while control revealed 55.59 μg/ml.	Positive evidence, dose dependence	[107]
Histopathologic and hepatoprotective effect	Leaves, 70% methanol extract.	Dimethoate induced liver damage in rats. Rats fed with extract.	100, 200 and 300 mg/kg extracts.	Negative Control: Rats fed with dimethoate and water instead of extract.	The extract resulted in a significant decline serum marker enzymes SGOT, SGPT and ALP. The extract further resulted in less necrosis, limited loss of cell boundaries and reduced loss of intact hepatocytes.	Positive evidence, dose dependence	[195, 224]
	Roots,n-butanol fraction obtained from ethanol extract.	Direct ingestion, In vivo against Sprague-Dawley 9SD rats.	Two concentrations, 150 ad 300 mg/kg.	Negative Control: Rats fed with water instead of extract.	The fraction resulted in less or no effect on the renal and hepatic damage caused by streptomycin induced diabetes.	Positive evidence, Not dose dependent.	[169]
Anthelmintic activity	Twigs, fruits and wood, (1:1) methanol: dichloromethane and aqueous extracts.	Direct contact.	A single dose of 1 mg/ml.	Positive control: Levamisole.	Organic extract from twigs revealed average % worm death of 69.47 against Caenorhabditis elegans.	Positive evidence. Not dose dependent.	[189]
	Stem bark, Aqueous and methanol extracts.	Larval mortality and egg hatch inhibition assays.	Concentration ranging from 0.06 to 4 mg/ml.	Positive control: Albendazole.	Methanol extract revealed LC₅₀ value of 3.9 and 2.65 mg/ml against Haemonchus contortus in egg hatch inhibition and larval mortality assay respectively.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence.	[184, 185]
	Leaves + Stem bark, root bark, root kernel, Aqueous extracts	Direct contact	A concentration of 200 mg/ml diluted.	Positive control: None reported.	The root bark extract revealed an effect on cestodes of Hymenolepis diminuta after 1- and 24-hours incubation period at 1.6 and 0.002 mg/ml.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence.	[188]
Anti-plasmodial activity	Stem bark, Acetone extract.	Flow cytometry assay.	Concentration of 100 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Chloroquine.	Acetone extract revealed LC₅₀ value of 4.13 μg/ml against Plasmodium falciparum.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence.	[158]
	Fruits, leaves and stem bark, Acetone extracts.	In Vitro anti-plasmodial bioassay.	Concentration of 100 mg/ml serially diluted.	Positive control: Qiunine and chloroquine.	The acetone extract of fruit revealed LC₅₀ value of 67.18 μg/ml Plasmodium spp.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence.	[160]
	Leaves and roots, Aqueous and methanol extracts.	In Vitro anti-plasmodial bioassay.	A concentration of 100 μg/ml, serially diluted.	Positive control: None used.	Both aqueous and methanol extracts revealed LC₅₀ values >20 μg/ml against Plasmodium falciparum 3D7A strain.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence.	[104]
	Leaves, Dichloromethane extract.	pLDH assay	Concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 100 μg/ml.	Positive control: Chloroquine diphosphate	The extract revealed LC₅₀ value of 12.0 μg/ml against chloroquine sensitive strain D10 of Plasmodium falciparum.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence	[159]
	Leaves, Aqueous and methanol extracts.	In Vitro anti-plasmodial bioassay.	A concentration of 100 μg/ml, serially diluted.	Positive control: Chloroquine phosphate and artemisinin.	Aqueous extract of the leaves revealed anti-plasmodial activity of >100 μg/ml against Plasmodium falciparum.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[161]
	Stem bark, Ethanol extract, and fractions from column, ZMF1 (70:30 hexane: ethyl acetate), ZMF2 and ZMF3 (90:10 ethyl acetate: methanol), ZMF4 (70:30 ethyl acetate: methanol), ZMF 5 (30: 70 ethyl acetate: methanol )	pLDH assay for growth of P. falciparum, calorimetric method for effect of plant materials on basal Hsp70 ATPase activity, and MDH activity for effect of plant materials on chaperone function of PfHsp70-1 and PfHsp70-z.	Concentrations ranging from 0 to 50 μg/ml.	Positive control: Chloroquine for in vitro studies.	Fractions and extract revealed potent inhibition of both PfHsp70-1 and PfHsp70-z yielding IC_50s ranging from 3.1 to 9.3 μg/ml and 3.2 to 13.8 μg/ml. Further, crude ethanol extract, ZMF2 and ZMF5 revealed IC₅₀ values of 7.4, 6.4 and 19.9 μg/ml respectively against Plasmodium falciparum D37 parasite in vitro.	Positive evidence, dose dependence.	[113]
Anti-sickling effect (Anti-anaemic effect)	Stem bark and roots, Ethanol and aqueous extracts.	Emmel test, In vitro study.	Different concentrations of 20 to 160 μg/ml.	Positive control: None reported.	Ethanol extracts of both stem bark and roots revealed > 70 % anti-sickling effect in the Emmel test.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence.	[222]
Anticancer activity	Roots, Methanol extract.	Naphthol blue black assay	Two concentrations of 10 and 100 μg/ml.	Negative control: Cells and DMSO.	The extract revealed 50 to 75 % inhibition of HeLa, HT29 and A431 cells at 100 μg/ml.	Positive evidence, Not dose dependent.	[75]
	Leaves, Ethanol and dichloromethane extracts.	MTT assay and APOPercantage TM assay against HeLa, Caco-2, Chinese harmster ovary cells, KMST-6, H157 and H4 cells.	0 to 1000 μg/ml.	Negative control: Cells only without extract.	Dichloromethane extract revealed LC₅₀ value of 126.73 μg/ml against H4 cell line. Dichloromethane, methanol and ethanol extracts revealed selective inhibition of Caco-2.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence.	[90]
Mutagenicty/Genotoxicity	Stem bark, Dichloromethane and 90 % methanol extracts.	Ames test.	50, 500 and 5000 μg/ml concentrations of plant extracts.	Positive control: 4-Nitoquinoline-N-oxide (4NQO)	The extracts were found to be mutagenic against strain TA98.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence.	[149]
	Leaves, Dichloromethane and 90 % methanol extracts.	VITOTOX test, Ames test in TA98 and TA100 strains with and without metabolic activation.	0.05, 0.5 and 5.0 mg/ml plant extracts.	The positive controls used: 4- Nitroquinoline 1-oxide (4-NQO) (for TA98 and TA100 without S9) and benzo[a] pyrene (B-[a]-P) (for TA98 and TA100 with S9).	The 90% methanol extract showed a mutagenic effect for TA98 in the presence of S9 mix alone.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence.	[226]
	Roots and Twigs, Dichloromethane and 90 % methanol extracts.	VITOTOX test Ames test in TA98 and TA100 strains with and without metabolic activation.	0.05, 0.5 and 5.0 mg/ml plant extracts	The positive controls used: 4- Nitroquinoline 1-oxide (4-NQO) (for TA98 and TA100 without S9) and benzo[a] pyrene (B-[a]-P) (for TA98 and TA100 with S9).	The 90% methanol extracts showed a mutagenic effect in strain TA98.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence.	[227]
	Roots, leaves and Twigs, Dichloromethane and methanol extracts.	Ames, Umu-C and VITOTOX® tests, and with the micronucleus test and alkaline comet assay in human white blood cells in the absence of S9 only.	0.05, 0.5 and 5.0 mg/ml plant extracts	The positive controls used: 4- Nitroquinoline 1-oxide (4-NQO) (for TA98 and TA100 without S9) and benzo[a] pyrene (B-[a]-P) (for TA98 and TA100 with S9).	The extracts did not reveal any mutagenicity.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence.	[228]
	Leaves, fresh and long term stored methanol plant extracts	Ames test in TA98, TA100 and TA1535 strains in the absence of metabolic activation.	0.05, 0.5 and 5.0 mg/ml plant extracts.	The positive controls used: 4- Nitroquinoline 1-oxide	The plant extracts of both fresh and long-term stored materials did not show any mutagenic effect against the three tester bacterial strains.	Positive evidence, Dose dependence.	[229]