Close
  Indian J Med Microbiol
 

Figure 2: Antioxidant activity of extract/different fraction of Angiopteris helferiana rhizome and standard were estimated by 1, 1-diphenyl-2-picryl-hydrazyl free radical scavenging test and the results were expressed as IC50 values (a). Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Nitric oxide radical scavenging assay in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells was determined after the viability assay (b) of ethyl acetate fraction on RAW 264.7 cells. The production of nitrate ions after treating RAW 264.7 cells with lipopolysaccharide alone or with different concentration of ethyl acetate fraction was evaluated (c). The data shown are represented as the mean ± standard error of the mean of three separate experiments. Statistical significance was calculated using one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test. ##P < 0.01 versus control; **P < 0.01 versus LPS

Figure 2: Antioxidant activity of extract/different fraction of <i>Angiopteris helferiana</i> rhizome and standard were estimated by 1, 1-diphenyl-2-picryl-hydrazyl free radical scavenging test and the results were expressed as IC<sub>50</sub> values (a). Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (<i>n</i> = 3). Nitric oxide radical scavenging assay in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells was determined after the viability assay (b) of ethyl acetate fraction on RAW 264.7 cells. The production of nitrate ions after treating RAW 264.7 cells with lipopolysaccharide alone or with different concentration of ethyl acetate fraction was evaluated (c). The data shown are represented as the mean ± standard error of the mean of three separate experiments. Statistical significance was calculated using one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test. <sup>##</sup><i>P</i> < 0.01 versus control; **<i>P</i> < 0.01 versus LPS