↓ Skip to main content

Comparative study of three Plumbago L. species (Plumbaginaceae) by microscopy, UPLC-UV and HPTLC

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Natural Medicines, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Comparative study of three Plumbago L. species (Plumbaginaceae) by microscopy, UPLC-UV and HPTLC
Published in
Journal of Natural Medicines, November 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11418-012-0717-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmed M. Galal, Vijayasankar Raman, Bharathi Avula, Yan-Hong Wang, Chidananda Swamy Rumalla, Aruna Dharmapriya Weerasooriya, Ikhlas A. Khan

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative study of anatomy of leaves, stems and roots of three species of Plumbago, namely P. auriculata Lam., P. indica L. and P. zeylanica L. by light microscopy. The paper also provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of the naphthoquinone, plumbagin-a major constituent present in these species-using UPLC-UV. Microscopic examinations revealed the presence of distinctive differences in the anatomical features of the leaf, stem and root of the three species, and these can thus be used for identification and authentication of these species. UPLC-UV analysis showed the highest concentration of plumbagin in the roots of P. zeylanica (1.62% w/w) followed by the roots of P. indica (0.97% w/w) and then P. auriculata (0.33-0.53% w/w). In contrast, plumbagin was not detected in the stems and leaves of P. indica and in the leaves of P. auriculata, whereas very low concentrations (<0.02% w/w) of plumbagin were detected in the stems and leaves of P. zeylanica and in the stems of P. auriculata. HPTLC fingerprints of the leaf and root of the three species exhibited distinguishable profiles, while those of the stems were undifferentiated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 41%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 47%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,230,558
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Natural Medicines
#395
of 530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,863
of 178,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Natural Medicines
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 530 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 178,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.