Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methanolic Extract of Dill Leaves Inhibits AGEs Formation and Shows Potential Hepatoprotective Effects in CCl4 Induced Liver Toxicity in Rat

Oshaghi, Ebrahim Abbasi, Khodadadi, Iraj, Mirzaei, Fatemeh, Khazaei, Mozafar, Tavilani, Heidar, Goodarzi, Mohammad Taghi·2017·Journal of Pharmaceutics
DOI 10.1155/2017/6081374PMC PMC5274678
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The research was aimed at evaluating the antiglycation, antioxidant, and hepatoprotective properties of methanolic extract of Anethum graveolens (dill). The antioxidant properties, photochemical characteristics, and antiglycation effects of dill extract were measured. Carbon tetrachloride-induced hepatotoxic rats were used to show the hepatoprotective activity of dill leaves. Different concentration of dill extract (0.032, 0.065, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, and 1 mg/mL) showed potential antioxidant ability. The extract of dill leaves significantly reduced AGEs formation and also fructosamine and protein carbonyl levels in rats’ liver. Thiol groups’ oxidation, amyloid cross-β, and protein fragmentation (P<0.001) significantly reduced in treated rats. Liver damage markers significantly reduced in dill-treated animals (P<0.05). Dill with potential antioxidant, antiglycation, and hepatoprotective effects can be suggested for treatment of diabetes complications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2017/6081374

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Antioxidant and antiradical activity of dill extract. Values are the average of triplicate experiments and presented as mean ± SEM. (a) DPPH radical scavenging activity. (b) FRAP assays. (c) Superoxide radical scavenging activity. (d) Hydrogen peroxide radical scavenging activity. (e) Metal chelating activity. (f) Reducing power activity. (g) Nitric oxide scavenging activity.
Figure 1 Antioxidant and antiradical activity of dill extract. Values are the average of triplicate experiments and presented as mean ± SEM. (a) DPPH radical scavenging activity. (b) FRAP assays. (c) Superoxide radical scavenging activity. (d) Hydrogen peroxide radical scavenging activity. (e) Metal chelating activity. (f) Reducing power activity. (g) Nitric oxide scavenging activity.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 (a) The effect of dill extract on the level of protein aggregation. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 3); ∗P < 0.001 compared with BSA/fructose at the same incubation time. AG: aminoguanidine. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 3); ∗P < 0.001 compared with BSA/fructose at the same incubation time. (b) Protein fragmentation in BSA incubated with 200 mM fructose in the presence of Cu+2 ion, aminoguanidine, and dill extract for 7 days, detected by SDS-PAGE. Protein fragmentation inhibited by aminoguanidine (lane C) and dill extract (lane D) compared with BSA/fructose. A lane: 10 mg/mL BSA, B lane: 10 mg/mL BSA + 200 mM fructose, C lane: 10 mg/mL BSA + 200 mM fructose + aminoguanidine, and D lane: 10 mg/mL BSA + 200 mM fructose + dill extract.
Figure 2 (a) The effect of dill extract on the level of protein aggregation. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 3); ∗P < 0.001 compared with BSA/fructose at the same incubation time. AG: aminoguanidine. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 3); ∗P < 0.001 compared with BSA/fructose at the same incubation time. (b) Protein fragmentation in BSA incubated with 200 mM fructose in the presence of Cu+2 ion, aminoguanidine, and dill extract for 7 days, detected by SDS-PAGE. Protein fragmentation inhibited by aminoguanidine (lane C) and dill extract (lane D) compared with BSA/fructose. A lane: 10 mg/mL BSA, B lane: 10 mg/mL BSA + 200 mM fructose, C lane: 10 mg/mL BSA + 200 mM fructose + aminoguanidine, and D lane: 10 mg/mL BSA + 200 mM fructose + dill extract.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Histopathological changes in the liver of different treated animals. Histology of liver in normal group showed regular structure, while CCl4-treated animals show the entire damage of hepatocytes. In dill-treated animals liver damage was restored.
Figure 3 Histopathological changes in the liver of different treated animals. Histology of liver in normal group showed regular structure, while CCl4-treated animals show the entire damage of hepatocytes. In dill-treated animals liver damage was restored.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. 2008, Pharmacologyonline, 2, 219
  2. 10.5539/ijb.v5n4p14 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.12.039 · DOI
  4. 2005, Iranian Journal of Diabetes and Lipid Disorders, 5, 109
  5. 2011, Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 10, 47
  6. 10.5455/vetworld.2013.502-507 · DOI
  7. 2014, Pharmaceutical Sciences, 20, 40
  8. 2012, Annals of Biological Research, 3, 4313
  9. 10.1002/ptr.2553 · DOI
  10. 2013, Avicenna Journal of Medical Biochemistry, 1, 1
  11. 2014, Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 16, 343
  12. 10.1155/2015/958560 · DOI
  13. 10.1186/1472-6882-14-130 · DOI
  14. 2016, Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences, 41, 328
  15. 10.4103/2229-516x.179019 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.jfca.2005.04.009 · DOI
  17. 10.3109/13880209.2012.761244 · DOI
  18. 2013, International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 4, 889
  19. 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.04.019 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/S0278-6915(02)00169-2 · DOI
  21. 10.1254/jphs.FP0030597 · DOI
  22. 10.1186/s12906-015-0919-6 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.fct.2013.05.053 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1016/s2213-8587(13)70199-2 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.2337/db11-1120 · DOI
  26. 10.1515/jbcpp-2012-0017 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/S0531-5565(03)00004-4 · DOI
  28. 2002, Kobe Journal of Medical Sciences, 48, 125
  29. 10.1055/s-0031-1282406 · DOI
  30. 10.3923/pjn.2014.303.309 · DOI
  31. 2008, DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 16, 88
  32. 10.1002/ptr.2329 · DOI
  33. 10.1155/2016/1098916 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 2012, Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 4, 1885
  35. 10.1016/j.apjtb.2015.06.012 · DOI

Cited by

See all 7

Metadata

Authors
Oshaghi, E. A., Khodadadi, I., Mirzaei, F., Khazaei, M., Tavilani, H., & Goodarzi, M. T.
Affiliations
  • Department of Clinical Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
  • Student Research Committee, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
  • Fertility and Infertility Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Pharmaceutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-01-15
Volume
2017
Pages
1-9
ISSN
  • 2090-9918
  • 2090-7818
DOI
10.1155/2017/6081374
PMC
PMC5274678
Cited by
7
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified)
Funders
Hamadan University of Medical Sciences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methanolic Extract of Dill Leaves Inhibits AGEs Formation and Shows Potential Hepatoprotective Effects in CCl4 Induced Liver Toxicity in Rat. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1155/2017/6081374
The paper
Oshaghi, E. A., Khodadadi, I., Mirzaei, F., Khazaei, M., Tavilani, H., & Goodarzi, M. T. (2017). Methanolic Extract of Dill Leaves Inhibits AGEs Formation and Shows Potential Hepatoprotective Effects in CCl4 Induced Liver Toxicity in Rat. Journal of Pharmaceutics. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6081374

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.