Assistant Professor (C)
Department of Food Science and Technology, University College of Sciences, Satavahana University, Karimnagar, Telangana, India 505001
Abstract
This study assesses six edible plants’ nutritional and biochemical properties regarding their proximate composition, mineral content, extractive yields, and antioxidant properties. The plants’ extractive yield and antioxidant activity were determined in different solvents, whereby bioactive constituents were extracted into high-polar solvents such as ethanol and methanol. The total phenolic and flavonoid content were also evaluated, where an abundant variation was apparent among the plants, with some plants recording a higher antioxidant capacity. Biochemical analysis showed a dependent profile of the plants for moisture, protein, carbohydrates, lipids, and fiber. All these contribute to the possible role of plants in increasing the bioavailability of flavonoids and their antioxidant powers. The analysis of mineral content demonstrated the presence of the essential components like potassium, calcium, copper, iron, and magnesium needed for supporting antioxidant enzymes and metabolic processes. In conclusion, such plants can greatly enhance diet-based curative cancer methods due to their flavonoid-rich structure and antioxidant capacity. Therefore, further implications ought to be laid on the chemical components of these plants as well as the viability of using them in the fight against diseases.
Keywords: Biochemical analysis, Antioxidant properties, Flavonoids, Edible plants, Cancer Prevention
Introduction
Cancer is one of the most critical health issues emerging around the globe. The World Health Organization (WHO) stated that cancer is among the diseases that are more progressive and are the leading cause of the high number of cases diagnosed and death incidences from the disease, with millions of people being affected each year [1]. The rise in cancer cases has made people seek other methods of fighting it, and diet, most importantly, reduces cancer. Flavonoids are dietary phytochemicals present in multiple products of plant origin, such as fruits, vegetables, tea, or wine, and have been described as antioxidants, anti-inflammatory, and anti-proliferative compounds [2, 3]. These compounds are derived from the polyphenol family and have proven to have the potential to treat or/or prevent several forms of cancer. Flavonoids are the primary elements underpinning cancer prevention through diet; thus, the
relationship between flavonoids and cancer risk is critical to identifying viable strategies for preventing the disease.
Flavonoids play various biological functions in cell cycle regulation, apoptosis, cancer cell proliferation, and angiogenesis [4, 5]. Flavonoids have established direct anticancer activity but also have antioxidant potential, which assists in removing Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) involved in Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) injury, oxidative stress, and cancer development [6, 7]. Due to their antioxidant activity, which helps guard against oxidative stress and inflammation, flavonoids limit cellular damage that could lead to cancer. Subsequent in vitro and in vivo evidence has further confirmed the cancer chemopreventive activity of flavonoids to emphasize its role as a diet-derived molecule with pharmacological implications.
However, only a few clinical trials have been conducted to assess flavonoid’s potential for cancer prevention. The research issue concerns the problem that raises many questions regarding bioavailability since flavonoids are not very bioavailable, and their solubility plays the leading role in the process. Bioavailability involves how these compounds enter the blood circulation system and reach the tissue levels to exert their protective roles. Despite this, the bioavailability of flavonoids is not constant because various factors like the flavonoids’ structure, gut metabolism, and microbiota affect their adsorption [8, 9]. However, quercetin and epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) showed high bioavailability and cancer prevention functions in clinical tests; other flavonoids cannot be absorbed into the body or metabolized fast and, therefore, cannot be used for therapeutic purposes [10, 11]. This variability in bioavailability creates a challenge in applying results obtained from flavonoids tested in laboratory settings to prove efficacy in cancer prevention. Thus, there is a significant literature gap in identifying the difficulties of flavonoid bioavailability and how these considerations affect flavonoid efficacy in people.
Using flavonoids as anticancer agents also poses other drawbacks since actual bioavailability, when used systemically, is not very high. The mechanisms through which flavonoids mediate cancer cell killing, especially under physiological conditions, are also not fully elucidated. Previous research has noted that flavonoids exert diverse influence on different cancer-related signaling pathways; however, the peculiarity of metabolism in other individuals and the difference in flavonoid response render it challenging for preclinical experiments to apply in clinical trials. However, few experimental studies suggest that flavonoids have antineoplastic
effects. Not many clinical trials have been conducted on humans that prove that flavonoids can help reduce cancer incidence [12]. This gap shows the requirement for systematic reviews to synthesize the clinical data and assess the possibility of using flavonoids in diet cancer prevention interventions.
The bioavailability of flavonoids is a crucial factor for their anticancer efficacy, and as we know, the bioavailability of flavonoids depends on the structure and the characteristics of flavonoids; with advancing age, the bacterial flora of the human intestine changes, and people may metabolize flavonoids at different rates [13]. Thus, some flavonoids like quercetin and EGCG have been more researched for their antioxidant activity and bioavailability. In contrast, other flavonoids like anthocyanin and flavanol may be rapidly metabolized or exhibit low solubility, which makes them a problem for Absorption. These variations must be considered if flavonoids must be administered in trials to prevent cancer through diet. In addition, the metabolism of flavonoids is another critical factor that depends on genetics and gut microbiota, which affect their bioavailability and the potential health outcomes of flavonoids [14].
The study aims to identify the antioxidant biochemical properties of flavonoids in cancer prevention and control and the roles of flavonoids, namely epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), quercetin, and resveratrol, concerning their mechanisms of action, bioavailability, and clinical relevance.
Methodology
Collection and Authentication of Plant Materials
To study the antioxidant nature of flavonoids in cancer-preventive aspects, six common edible leafy plants, Ipomoea aquatic Forssk. Aasystasia gangetica (Acanthaceae), Enhydra fluctuans Lour, Achyranthes aspera L. (Amaranthaceae) (Convolvulaceae). Three species (Asteraceae), Oldenlandia corymbosa Aiton (Rubiaceae), and Amaranthus viridis L. (Amaranthaceae)-were chosen. These biochemical plant materials were obtained from different urban and peri-urban regions that authenticated the plant, and specimens were put as vouchers for future reference. The collected samples were segregated for dual purposes. A part was refrigerated for 15oC for vitamin analysis; the rest were shade-dried, pulverized, and kept in a tight container for antioxidant and phytochemical evaluation.
Proximate Composition Analysis
A standardized protocol was used in performing the proximate analysis (AOAC, 2000). Ash content was established from the incineration of plant samples in the muffle furnace at 500°C for 5–6 hours. Moisture content was determined by drying the specimen at 100 – 110°C in a drying oven. Crude lipid was measured using extraction by Soxhlet with pet ether (boiling point 60 – 80°C) for 6-8 hours. Crude fiber: Sequential extraction in 1.25% sulfuric acid and 1.25% sodium hydroxide and combustion of residue in the presence of oxygen [15]. The micro-Kjeldahl procedure determined crude protein content, whereas total carbohydrate was estimated. The energy value of the sample of each plant was determined by multiplying the protein, fat, and carbon contents by the calorific factors (4.00, 9.00, and 4.00 kcal/g, as appropriate) and subtotalling the result.
Mineral Content Estimation
To identify its mineral composition, 1 gram of each sample was burnt in a silica crucible at 400°C to give it carbon-free ash. This was moistened with concentrated sulphuric acid and reheated until all fumes disappeared. The mixture was then ignited at 600°C until a constant weight was obtained [16]. The productively sulfated ash was dissolved in 100 ml of 5% hydrochloric acid to give a clear solution. Quantitative analysis was done on mineral elements by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS), Model AA 800, Perkin-Elmer, Germany; a standard solution was prepared, and calibration curves were plotted for each mineral.
Antioxidant Activity in Solvent Extract Systems
Extraction Process
The dried and powdered plant samples (1 g) were extracted with 20 ml of the four different solvents, benzene, chloroform, methanol, and 70% aqueous ethanol, at ambient temperature by agitation (18–24 hours). The extracts were filtered and made up to 25 ml for subsequent antioxidant measures.
Determination of Antioxidant Properties
Total phenolic content was determined using the Folin-Ciocalteu method and was given in milligrams of gallic acid equivalent (GAE)/gram of dry extract. Total flavonoids were determined by milligrams of rutin equivalent (RE)/gram of extract. The power reduction was calculated using the Oyaizu method, and values were indicated in terms of milligrams of ascorbic acid equivalent (AAE) per gram of dry extract. Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power
(FRAP) was measured according to the Trolox equivalent (TE) / g of extract results. The free radical scavenging activity was determined by two techniques: DPPH radical assay according to ABTS radical cation [17]. The percentage of radical scavenging activity was given as: Scavenging activity = [ (Ac-At) /Ac]*100, as Ac control absorbance and At absorbance in the presence of plant extract. The method was used to analyze metal chelating activity, and the percentage of inhibition was calculated using the same formula. Anti-lipid peroxidation capacity was determined by using a modified procedure. The percentage of inhibition was calculated from the rise of absorbance, comparing the control and the sample-containing reactions.
Quantification High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)
HPLC Equipment and Analytical Conditions
HPLC analysis was performed on a Dionex Ultimate 3000 liquid chromatograph system comprised of a diode array detector (DAD) and Chromeleon software. The separation process was carried out using a reverse-phase Acclaim C18 column (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 m). The volume taken from each sample was 20µL [18]. The mobile phase comprised methanol (Solvent A) and 0.5% aqueous acetic acid (Solvent B), where elution was gradual and the column temperature was 250C.
Standard Solutions and Calibration Curves
Standard solutions of the stock phenolic acids (gallic acid, ferulic acid, caffeic acid, chlorogenic acid, etc.) and flavonoids (catechin, rutin, quercetin, apigenin, kaempferol) were made as 1 mg/ml stock in MeOH. The working solutions were achieved through dilution using a mobile phase and passed through a 0.45 µm PVDF syringe filter [19]. These standards generated calibration curves by making a peak area versus concentration plot for each compound.
Chromatographic Analysis
The analysis was done based on the validated method of USP and ICH guidelines. The chromatographic detection was achieved at 272 nm, 280 nm, and 310 nm with the assistance of a photodiode array detector. Phenolic and flavonoid compounds were identified in the extracts from the plant based on their retention time and co-injection with authentic standards [20]. Quantification was done by summing up the peak areas and calculating the compound concentrations based on the calibration curves. Convergence limits were used to report the data while the analyses were run in triplicate.
Determination of Water-Soluble Vitamins by HPLC
Preparation of Standard Solutions
Vitamin C (Stock, 1 ml); Vitamin B1 (25 mg in 1 ml); Vitamin B3 (25 mg in 1 ml); and Vitamins B2 and B9 were diluted into 0.1 M sodium hydroxide [21]. These solutions were kept in amber-glass bottles at 4°C to prevent degradation. Working solutions were prepared by appropriate diluting with the mobile phase.
Vitamin Analysis Procedure
Samples were passed using 0.45 µm filters and injected into the HPLC system at certain chromatographic conditions. Water-soluble vitamins were determined based on retention time and quantified, comparing integrated peak areas with the standards. The results were then employed to evaluate the nutritional contribution of the plant materials to dietary practices in reducing the risk of cancer.
Results
Table 1: Proximate Composition of Edible Plants
| Plants | Moisture (%) | Fibre (%) | Ash (%) | Protein (%) | Carbohydrate (%) | Lipid (%) | Energy (kcal/100g) |
| I. aquatica | 69.11 | 0.72ᵇ ± 0.08 | 7.44 ± 2.19 | 0.27ᵈᵉ ± 0.08 | 16.37 ± 0.24ᵇᶜ | 0.67ᵇᶜ ± 0.34 | 117.27 ± 0.58ᶠ |
| A. aspera | 53.34 | 0.08ᵃ ± 0.11 | 10.51 ± 0.14ᵇᵈᵉᶠ | 13.82 ± 1.196 | 0.08ᵈᵉᶠ ± 0.01 | 2.19 ± 0.03ᵇᶜ | 118.62 ± 0.06ᵇ |
| A. gangetica | 70.21 | 0.98ᵃ ± 0.55 | 8.14 ± 0.26ᵇ | 17.35 ± 0.12ᵉ | 7.84 ± 0.23ᶜᵈᵉ | 2.04 ± 0.03ᵇᶜ | 92.27 ± 0.27ᵉ |
| E. fluctuans | 67.69 | 0.78ᶜ ± 0.21 | 15.37 ± 0.44ᶜᵈ | 15.15 ± 0.06ᵈᵉ | 8.00 ± 0.39ᵍ | 10.52 ± 0.10ᶜ | – |
| O. corymbosa | 60.28 | 0.40ᵈ ± 0.30ᵉᶠ | 7.26 ± 0.39ᵍ | 8.34 ± 0.10ᶜ | – | – | – |
| A. viridis | 55.80 | 9.64 ± 0.06ᵉᶠ | 9.08 ± 0.37ᶠ | 1.10 ± 2.16 | 0.01ᵉᶠ ± 0.06ᵃᵇ | 80.53 ± 0.97 | 148.02 ± 0.28ᵃ |
Table 1 presents the proximate composition of biochemical analysis, offering insights into their nutritional potential for enhancing flavonoid-based cancer prevention. Alternanthera gangetica shows high protein content (17.35%) and moderate lipids (2.04%), which may
strengthen flavonoid transport and immune function. Enhydra fluctuations exhibit notable values for ash (15.37%), protein (15.15%), carbohydrate (8.00%), and lipid (10.52%), all of which can synergize with flavonoid action by supporting metabolic and antioxidant pathways. Achyranthes Aspera has a high protein level (13.82%) and energy content (118.62 kcal/100g) despite minimal carbohydrates (0.08%), suggesting lean nutritional density. Amaranthus viridis, with the highest fiber (9.64%) and lipid (80.53%) levels, provides 148.02 kcal/100g ideal for flavonoid absorption. In contrast, Ipomoea aquatica has high moisture (69.11%) and moderate carbohydrate (16.37%) but low protein (0.27%). These data underscore how varied plant profiles can optimize flavonoid bioavailability and contribute to antioxidant defenses in cancer risk reduction.
Table 2: Mineral Content in Studied Plant Materials (mg/g dry plant material)
| Plants | Na (mg/g) | K (mg/g) | Ca (mg/g) | Cu (mg/g) | Mg (mg/g) | Fe (mg/g) | Zn (mg/g) | Mn (mg/g) |
| I. aquatica | 0.840 ± 0.004ᵇ | 4.406 ± 0.001ᵇ | 5.983 ± 0.002 | 6.338 ± 0.004ᵇ | 0.044 ± 0.001ᶜᵈ | 0.144 ± 0.02ᶜᵈ | 0.042 ± 0.003ᵃᵇᶜ | 0.012 ± 0.001ᵇᶜᵈ |
| A. aspera | 0.050 ± 0.001ᶠ | 3.405 ± 0.003ᶜ | 5.375 ± 0.003 | 3.554 ± 0.060ᵈ | 0.049 ± 0.001ᵇᶜ | 0.054 ± 0.007ᵉ | 0.050 ± 0.001ᵃ | 0.013 ± 0.002ᵇᶜᵈ |
| A. ganjetica | 0.427 ± 0.005ᶜ | 2.740 ± 0.052ᵈ | 5.661 ± 0.003 | 4.553 ± 0.073ᶜ | 0.042 ± 0.002ᶜᵈ | 0.408 ± 0.007ᵃ | 0.044 ± 0.004ᵃᵇ | 0.021 ± 0.002ᵃ |
| E. fluctuans | 0.204 ± 0.004ᵈ | 4.870 ± 0.067ᵃ | 6.216 ± 0.055 | 3.002 ± 0.002ᵃ | 0.038 ± 0.001ᵈ | 0.123 ± 0.003ᵈ | 0.043 ± 0.002ᵃᵇ | 0.009 ± 0.001ᵇᶜᵈ |
| O. corumbosa | 1.111 ± 0.007ᵃ | 1.216 ± 0.060ᶠ | 4.926 ± 0.047 | 2.806 ± 0.067ᵉ | 0.053 ± 0.003ᵃᵇᶜ | 0.319 ± 0.004ᵇ | 0.036 ± 0.001ᵇᶜᵈ | 0.016 ± 0.002ᵇᶜ |
| A. viridis | 0.104 ± 0.003ᵉ | 3.316 ± 0.050ᶜ | 5.736 ± 0.012 | 1.860 ± 0.049ᶜ | 0.039 ± 0.001ᵈ | 0.415 ± 0.002ᵃ | 0.019 ± 0.001ᵈᵉ | 0.019 ± 0.001ᵃᵇ |
Table 2 outlines the mineral content of six edible plants, which are essential for enhancing flavonoid bioactivity in cancer prevention. Ipomoea aquatica shows remarkably high levels of potassium (4.406 mg/g), calcium (5.983 mg/g), and copper (6.338 mg/g), making it a strong candidate for supporting antioxidant enzyme functions. Copper, in particular, is vital for the activity of enzymes like superoxide dismutase, which reduce oxidative stress implicated in cancer progression. Enhydra fluctuans contains the highest potassium (4.870 mg/g), calcium (6.216 mg/g), and moderate copper (3.002 mg/g), all of which support cellular antioxidant mechanisms. Alternanthera gangetica is notable for its iron content (0.408 mg/g) and manganese (0.021 mg/g), minerals involved in oxidative damage repair and flavonoid metabolism. Achyranthes Aspera has high copper (3.554 mg/g), potassium (3.405 mg/g), and the highest zinc content (0.050 mg/g), which enhances flavonoid-related immune modulation. O. corymbosa contains the highest sodium (1.111 mg/g), iron
(0.319 mg/g), and magnesium (0.053 mg/g), but its high sodium may limit its use in specific diets. Amaranthus viridis shows substantial iron (0.415 mg/g), copper (1.860 mg/g), and moderate manganese (0.019 mg/g), supporting redox homeostasis. These values suggest the mineral profiles of these plants can enhance flavonoid bioavailability and antioxidant potential, supporting diet-based cancer risk reduction strategies.
Table 3: Extractive Yield (%) of Edible Plants in Different Solvent Extracts
| Plants | 70% Aqueous Ethanol | Methanol | Chloroform | Benzene |
| I. aquatica | 9.886 ± 0.060ᵃ | 5.994 ± 0.117ᵇ | 2.006 ± 0.094ᶜ | 1.495 ± 0.058ᵇ |
| A. aspera | 5.258 ± 0.080ᵇᶜ | 3.980 ± 0.160ᵈ | 2.982 ± 0.133ᵃ | 2.465 ± 0.053ᵃ |
| A. ganjetica | 2.559 ± 0.082ᵉ | 3.980 ± 0.106ᵈ | 0.999 ± 0.054ᵉ | 0.993 ± 0.011ᶜ |
| E. fluctuans | 6.192 ± 0.044ᵇ | 2.461 ± 0.104ᵉ | 0.983 ± 0.038ᵉ | 0.995 ± 0.032ᶜ |
| O. corymbosa | 4.270 ± 0.713ᶜ | 6.693 ± 0.060ᵃ | 1.835 ± 0.061ᶜᵈ | 0.898 ± 0.057ᵈ |
| A. viridis | 3.246 ± 0.554ᵈ | 5.451 ± 0.178ᵇᶜ | 2.458 ± 0.086ᵇ | 0.997 ± 0.057ᶜ |
Table 3 presents the extractive yields (%) of six edible plants in various solvents, revealing how efficiently flavonoids and other phytochemicals are extracted, which impacts their antioxidant potency. Ipomoea aquatica exhibits the highest yield in 70% aqueous ethanol (9.886%) and methanol (5.994%), suggesting high polarity solvents are most effective in extracting its antioxidant compounds. O. corymbosa shows the highest methanol extractive yield (6.693%), indicating strong solubility of its bioactive compounds in methanol. In contrast, A. gangetica has the lowest ethanol yield (2.559%) and poor extraction in chloroform (0.999%) and benzene (0.993%), suggesting lower flavonoid concentration or poor solubility. Amaranthus viridis and A. aspera also yield moderate amounts of ethanol (3.246% and 5.258%) and methanol (5.451% and 3.980%). Notably, non-polar solvents like benzene produce the lowest yields across all plants, such as 0.898% for O. corymbosa. These findings imply that ethanol and methanol are more effective solvents for flavonoid-rich extracts, relevant for diet-based cancer prevention strategies.
Table 4: Antioxidant Properties of the Edible Plants
| Antioxidant Parameters | Solvent | I. aquatica | A. aspera | A. genetic | E. fluctuations | O. corymbose | A. viridis |
| Total Phenolic Content(GAE, mg/g DE) | 70% Aq. ethanol | 45.449 ± 0.130ᶠ | 74.831 ± 0.243ᵇ | 91.797 ± 0.295ᵃ | 70.338 ± 0.103ᶜ | 47.184 ± 0.060ᵉ | 50.700 ± 0.079ᵈ |
| Methanol | 13.953 ± 0.534ᵉ | 37.276 ± 0.321ᶜᵈ | 34.487 ± 0.321ᵈ | 63.744 ± 0.925ᵃ | 39.992 ± 0.266ᶜ | 48.858 ± 0.418ᵇ | |
| Chloroform | 12.692 ± 0.110ᶠ | 31.325 ± 0.931ᶜᵈ | 26.026 ± 0.282ᵉ | 57.436 ± 0.696ᵃ | 33.472 ± 0.039ᶜ | 42.718 ± 0.681ᵇ | |
| Benzene | 7.094 ± 0.427ᶠ | 26.051 ± 0.256ᶜ | 10.000 ± 0.110ᵉ | 35.641 ± 0.641ᵃ | 24.644 ± 0.884ᵈ | 33.718 ± 0.696ᵇ | |
| Total Flavonoids Content(RE, mg/g DE) | 70% Aq. ethanol | 13.941 ± 0.040ᶠ | 20.793 ± 0.122ᵇ | 20.132 ± 0.093ᵇᶜ | 21.759 ± 0.039ᵃ | 15.848 ± 0.125ᵉ | 19.970 ± 0.252ᵈ |
| Methanol | 10.856 ± 0.013ᶠ | 22.019 ± 0.020ᵃ | 20.412 ± 0.143ᵇ | 16.750 ± 0.066ᵈ | 14.884 ± 0.157ᵉ | 18.591 ± 0.577ᶜ | |
| Chloroform | 8.943 ± 0.040ᶠ | 14.172 ± 0.081ᵇ | 20.174 ± 0.200ᵃ | 12.848 ± 0.121ᵈ | 12.266 ± 0.043ᵈᵉ | 13.637 ± 0.032ᵇᶜ | |
| Benzene | 6.855 ± 0.081ᵉ | 10.542 ± 0.073ᶜᵈ | 17.518 ± 0.121ᵃ | 11.978 ± 0.079ᵇ | 10.561 ± 0.088ᶜᵈ | 10.604 ± 0.079ᶜ | |
| FRAP Assay(TE, mg/g DE) | 70% Aq. ethanol | 1.338 ± 0.004ᵉ | 2.408 ± 0.002ᵃ | 2.057 ± 0.004ᵇ | 1.999 ± 0.002ᶜ | 1.454 ± 0.011ᵈᵉ | 1.553 ± 0.004ᵈ |
| Methanol | 1.296 ± 0.003ᶠ | 2.178 ± 0.002ᵃ | 2.051 ± 0.004ᵇ | 1.934 ± 0.003ᶜ | 1.340 ± 0.004ᵉ | 1.510 ± 0.004ᵈ | |
| Chloroform | 0.618 ± 0.005ᶠ | 1.529 ± 0.002ᵇ | 1.805 ± 0.002ᵃ | 1.285 ± 0.002ᶜ | 0.723 ± 0.004ᵉ | 0.853 ± 0.002ᵈ | |
| Benzene | 0.456 ± 0.003ᶜ | 0.488 ± 0.002ᵇ | 0.822 ± 0.002ᵃ | 0.434 ± 0.003ᵈ | 0.419 ± 0.002ᶠ | 0.425 ± 0.001ᵉ | |
| DPPH (% inhibition) | 70% Aq. ethanol | 12.172 ± 0.066ᵉ | 28.051 ± 0.057ᵇ | 39.140 ± 0.221ᵃ | 19.173 ± 0.289ᶜ | 12.937 ± 0.125ᵈᵉ | 13.126 ± 0.263ᵈ |
| Methanol | 7.831 ± 0.257ᶠ | 12.907 ± 0.075ᶜ | 29.117 ± 0.300ᵃ | 15.831 ± 0.278ᵇ | 10.476 ± 0.095ᵈ | 8.671 ± 0.261ᵉ | |
| Chloroform | 3.166 ± 0.072ᵈ | 4.756 ± 0.176ᶜ | 14.916 ± 0.477ᵃ | 6.404 ± 0.221ᵇ | 2.619 ± 0.126ᵉ | 4.216 ± 0.199ᶜ | |
| Benzene | 3.594 ± 0.257ᵈᵉ | 4.837 ± 0.363ᵃ | 4.535 ± 0.119ᵇ | 3.779 ± 0.105ᵈ | 1.571 ± 0.082ᶠ | 4.177 ± 0.182ᶜ | |
| ABTS (% inhibition) | 70% Aq. ethanol | 40.028 ± 0.783ᶜ | 59.782 ± 0.207ᵇ | 69.048 ± 0.221ᵃ | 60.797 ± 0.418ᵇ | 41.727 ± 0.128ᶜ | 42.644 ± 0.048ᶜ |
| Methanol | 33.461 ± 0.444ᵈ | 52.745 ± 0.069ᵇ | 53.801 ± 0.328ᵃ | 44.714 ± 0.968ᶜ | 30.089 ± 0.366ᵉ | 29.060 ± 0.064ᶠ | |
| Chloroform | 12.788 ± 0.074ᶠ | 28.759 ± 0.138ᵃ | 24.966 ± 0.234ᵇᶜ | 23.887 ± 0.206ᶜ | 17.059 ± 0.704ᵉ | 18.444 ± 0.119ᵈ | |
| Benzene | 5.627 ± 0.256ᵉ | 0.676 ± 0.143ᶠ | 9.312 ± 0.412ᵇ | 8.322 ± 0.274ᶜ | 8.059 ± 0.926ᶜᵈ | 11.156 ± 0.162ᶠ | |
| Reducing Power(AAE, mg/g DE) | 70% Aq. ethanol | 14.786 ± 0.133ᵈ | 48.112 ± 0.586ᵃ | 41.242 ± 0.991ᵇ | 18.808 ± 0.101ᶜ | 13.270 ± 0.179ᶠ | 15.955 ± 0.160ᵉ |
| Methanol | 13.521 ± 0.121ᶜ | 35.223 ± 0.087ᵃ | 21.721 ± 0.181ᵇ | 12.594 ± 0.145ᵈ | 12.952 ± 0.270ᶜᵈ | 13.426 ± 0.132ᶜ | |
| Chloroform | 8.140 ± 0.150ᵉ | 23.370 ± 0.190ᵃ | 18.150 ± 0.140ᵇ | 9.280 ± 0.320ᵈ | 9.350 ± 0.260ᵈ | 10.240 ± 0.550ᶜ | |
| Benzene | 6.250 ± 0.060ᶠ | 15.250 ± 0.120ᵃ | 11.160 ± 0.040ᵇ | 8.330 ± 0.120ᵈ | 7.350 ± 0.160ᵉ | 9.180 ± 0.750ᶜ | |
| Metal Chelating Activity(% inhibition) | 70% Aq. ethanol | 17.936 ± 0.284ᶠ | 47.912 ± 0.142ᵇ | 52.416 ± 0.164ᵃ | 35.217 ± 0.217ᶜ | 20.229 ± 0.357ᵉ | 22.359 ± 0.491ᵈ |
| Methanol | 15.366 ± 0.745ᵉ | 35.203 ± 0.293ᵇ | 37.805 ± 0.141ᵃ | 21.138 ± 0.215ᶜ | 14.390 ± 0.141ᶠ | 20.081 ± 0.215ᵈ | |
| Chloroform | 11.240 ± 0.050ᵉ | 25.120 ± 0.090ᵇ | 31.250 ± 0.040ᵃ | 14.580 ± 0.220ᵈ | 10.230 ± 0.160ᶠ | 16.440 ± 0.350ᶜ | |
| Benzene | 7.150 ± 0.090ᶠ | 18.550 ± 0.020ᵇ | 21.060 ± 0.140ᵃ | 9.280 ± 0.020ᵈ | 8.440 ± 0.060ᵈᵉ | 11.080 ± 0.250ᶜ | |
| Lipid Peroxidation Assay(% inhibition) | 70% Aq. ethanol | 18.268 ± 0.057ᶠ | 49.449 ± 0.088ᵃ | 45.039 ± 0.072ᵇ | 24.094 ± 0.273ᶜ | 22.677 ± 0.067ᵈ | 21.102 ± 0.085ᵉ |
| Methanol | 13.540 ± 0.110ᵈᵉ | 37.094 ± 0.038ᵃ | 30.606 ± 0.035ᵇ | 14.104 ± 0.168ᵈ | 5.501 ± 0.058 | 16.079 ± 0.036ᶜ | |
| Chloroform | 9.230 ± 0.050ᵈ | 16.150 ± 0.040ᵃ | 13.450 ± 0.020ᵇ | 8.300 ± 0.140ᵉ | 3.450 ± 0.070ᶠ | 11.060 ± 0.090ᶜ | |
| Benzene | 4.120 ± 0.090ᵈ | 7.060 ± 0.080ᵃ | 6.250 ± 0.060ᵇ | 3.200 ± 0.110ᵉ | 1.550 ± 0.090ᶠ | 5.110 ± 0.080ᶜ |
Table 4 presents a comparative analysis among the studied plants; A. genetic consistently exhibits superior antioxidant capacity across most parameters, especially in 70% aqueous ethanol, with the highest TPC (91.797 mg GAE/g DE), TFC (20.132–20.412 mg RE/g DE), and DPPH inhibition (up to 39.14%). This suggests its richness in bioactive phenolics and flavonoids, contributing to strong free radical scavenging ability. A. aspera also demonstrates potent antioxidant activity, particularly in lipid peroxidation (49.449%) and reducing power (48.112 mg AAE/g DE), indicating potential for cellular protection against oxidative damage. Solvent polarity significantly influences extraction efficiency. Polar solvents like 70% ethanol and methanol generally yield higher antioxidant values, supporting their suitability for extracting hydrophilic antioxidant compounds. Conversely, benzene and chloroform consistently show lower efficacy across parameters. E. fluctuations rank moderately with notable FRAP and ABTS activity, suggesting ferric reducing and radical scavenging potential. Meanwhile, I. aquatica, O. corymbosa, and A. viridis exhibit weaker antioxidant profiles, though still valuable as dietary antioxidants. The findings emphasize A. ganjetica and A. aspera as promising functional foods with strong antioxidant potential, supporting their traditional use and potential nutraceutical applications.
Table 5: Quantitative Estimation of Phenolic Acids and Flavonoids in Edible Plants by HPLC (mg/100g dry plant material)
| Compound | I. aquatica | A. aspera | A. ganjetica | E. fluctuans | O. corymbose | A. viridis |
| Gallic acid | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.145 ± 0.001ᵃ |
| Protocatechuic acid | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Gentisic acid | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| p-Hydroxybenzoic acid | 0.033 ± 0.003ᵃ | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Chlorogenic acid | 1.827 ± 0.001ᵇ | ND | ND | ND | ND | 3.807 ± 0.001ᵃ |
| Vanillic acid | 0.360 ± 0.002ᶜ | 0.690 ± 0.006ᵃ | ND | ND | 0.500 ± 0.002ᵇ | ND |
| Caffeic acid | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Syringic acid | 0.404 ± 0.001ᵇ | ND | ND | ND | ND | 6.065 ± 0.002ᵃ |
| p-Coumaric acid | 0.374 ± 0.010ᵃ | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Ferulic acid | ND | 0.194 ± 0.004ᵈ | 0.249 ± 0.007ᶜ | 0.375 ± 0.008ᵃ | 0.281 ± 0.002ᵇ | 0.104 ± 0.002ᵉ |
| Sinapic acid | 0.055 ± 0.001ᵇ | ND | ND | ND | 0.267 ± 0.002ᵃ | ND |
| Salicylic acid | ND | ND | 1.518 ± 0.012ᵃ | ND | ND | ND |
| Ellagic acid | ND | ND | ND | 0.366 ± 0.007ᵃ | 0.025 ± 0.002ᶜ | 0.063 ± 0.001ᵇ |
| Naringin | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Rutin | 0.727 ± 0.001ᵃ | 0.058 ± 0.005ᵇ | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Myricetin | 1.787 ± 0.002ᵃ | ND | 0.414 ± 0.008ᵇ | ND | ND | ND |
| Quercetin | ND | 0.147 ± 0.006ᶜ | 1.239 ± 0.005ᵃ | 0.184 ± 0.003ᵇ | 0.091 ± 0.002ᵈ | ND |
| Naringenin | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Apigenin | ND | 3.592 ± 0.061ᵇ | 0.466 ± 0.012ᶜ | 0.194 ± 0.003ᵈ | 0.121 ± 0.002ᵉ | 4.231 ± 0.002ᵃ |
| Kaempferol | ND | 0.489 ± 0.006ᵃ | 0.196 ± 0.001ᶜ | 0.244 ± 0.005ᵇ | 0.098 ± 0.001ᵈ | ND |
| Catechin | ND | ND | 9.447 ± 0.009ᵃ | ND | ND | ND |
Table 5 highlights the presence of individual phenolic acids and flavonoids in six edible plants, measured by HPLC in mg/100g dry material. Amaranthus viridis stands out with the highest chlorogenic acid (3.807 mg) and syringic acid (6.065 mg), both potent antioxidants known for cancer-preventive properties. It also contains apigenin (4.231 mg), a flavonoid linked to anti-inflammatory and anti-carcinogenic effects. A. ganjetica is rich in catechin (9.447 mg) and quercetin (1.239 mg), both recognized for their free radical scavenging and anti-tumor activities. A. aspera shows a strong profile of apigenin (3.592 mg), kaempferol (0.489 mg), and vanillic acid (0.690 mg), suggesting a diverse antioxidant capacity. I. aquatica contains high myricetin (1.787 mg) and rutin (0.727 mg), both associated with DNA protection and oxidative stress reduction. These quantified flavonoids reinforce the role of these plants as functional foods with chemopreventive potential in cancer prevention through dietary intake.
Table 6: Water-Soluble Vitamin Content in the Edible Plants by HPLC (mg/100 g DPM)
| Plant Name | Vitamin C | B1 (Thiamine) | B2 (Riboflavin) | B3 (Niacin) | B5 (Pantothenic) | B6 (Pyridoxine) | B9 (Folic Acid) |
| I. aquatica | ND | 0.454 ± 0.007ᵃ | 0.710 ± 0.005ᶜ,ᵈ | 151.75 ± 0.333ᵃ | 0.131 ± ND | ND | 2.419 ± 0.005ᵃ |
| A. aspera | 0.174 ± 0.006ᵇ | 0.003 ± 0.384 | 0.013 ± 0.113ᶜ | ND | 1.227 ± 0.003ᵈ | 0.074 ± 0.002ᶜ | 1.507 ± 0.001ᶜ |
| A. ganjetica | 0.007 ± 0.001ᶠ | 2.511 ± 0.006ᵃ | ND | ND | 0.759 ± 0.010ᵉ | 0.077 ± 0.001ᶜ | ND |
| E. fluctuans | 0.404 ± 0.003ᵇ | 1.043 ± 0.002ᵇ | 0.604 ± 0.002ᵃ | ND | 1.850 ± 0.004ᵇ | 0.050 ± 0.005ᵈ | ND |
| O. corumbosa | 3.791 ± 0.005ᵇ | 0.049 ± 0.001ᵈ,ᵉ | 0.472 ± 0.011ᵈ | – | – | – | – |
| A. viridis | ND | ND | 1.278 ± 0.001ᶜ,ᵈ | 0.245 ± 0.002ᵃ | ND | 0.044 ± 0.003ᵈ,ᵉ | 0.012 ± 0.001ᶠ |
| 0.258 ± 0.003ᵇ | ND | 1.308 ± 0.011ᶜ | 0.038 ± 0.004ᵉ | – | – | – |
Table 6 presents the content of water-soluble vitamins in six edible plants, highlighting their nutritional significance in antioxidant defense and metabolic function. O. corumbosa contains the highest Vitamin C level (3.791 mg/100g), a potent antioxidant that supports immune function and reduces oxidative stress, making it a valuable dietary source. A. ganjetica exhibits the highest thiamine (Vitamin B1) content (2.511 mg), which is critical for energy metabolism and nerve function. I. aquatica shows outstanding niacin (Vitamin B3) content (151.75 mg), vital for DNA repair and cholesterol metabolism, along with notable folic acid (2.419 mg), essential for cell division and cancer prevention. A. viridis is rich in riboflavin (1.278 mg), contributing to redox reactions and antioxidant enzyme activity. E. fluctuans demonstrates a broad vitamin profile, including thiamine (1.043 mg), riboflavin (0.604 mg), and pantothenic acid (1.850 mg), supporting its role in coenzyme synthesis and oxidative balance. These findings confirm these plants’ antioxidant and nutritional value in promoting health and preventing chronic diseases.
Discussion
The biochemical profiling of the six designated edible plants presents their potential as health foods for improving health, mainly due to their flavonoid and antioxidant character. Their proximate compositions, mineral contents, and extractive yield variability indicate nutritional and therapeutic value diversities. The moisture obtained in the plants is moderate to high; thus, the other levels of nutrients may be influenced by factors like Ipomoea aquatic [22]. These protein levels greatly stimulate plants’ metabolic processes and immunity responses and fluctuate considerably. For instance, plants like Alternanthera gangetica and Enhydra fluctuations have large proteins required in antioxidant enzyme activity and flavonoid translocation [23]. Such a difference in the protein content with the plants tells us that not all plants help the body construct antioxidant-defence systems better than others.
Minerals are very critical in stimulating flavonoids’ bioactivity. For instance, potassium, calcium, and magnesium, found in large quantities in species such as Ipomoea aquatica and Enhydra fluctuans, are key for the cellular processes and the methods of balancing oxidative stress. Copper and iron are also especially noteworthy because they are part of the enzymatic reactions that reduce oxidative damage. These minerals help with the availability and efficacy of flavonoids in cancer prevention because they enhance the metabolic pathways in which they act [24]. The extractive yields give an understanding of the plants’ solubility and concentration levels of bioactive compounds. Solvents of high polarity, e.g., ethanol and methanol, are better at extracting flavonoids and other antioxidants [25]. This is important because the extraction of bioactive compounds is an essential process in using these plants to achieve health benefits. The variation in yields of plant extractives would suggest that some plants might be a better source of antioxidants with pockets that can be utilized to support cure.
Flavonoids, potent antioxidants, and anticancer compounds were identified at different plant levels. Achyranthes aspera and Alternanthera gangetica are examples of plants with relatively high flavonoids, which implies that they will effectively prevent oxidative damage, thus a crucial aspect of cancer development. Fluctuation in the flavonoid composition of the plants accentuates the role of choosing high bioactive compounds concentrating plant species for health promotion [26]. The antioxidant properties of these plants further reinforce a part of diet-based anti-cancer interventions. The plants’ antioxidant activities were determined by total phenolic and flavonoid content, which is essential in scavenging free radicals and protecting the cells. Diseases such as cancer are said to have a low chronicity risk due to high antioxidant capacities [27]. The biochemical analysis indicates potential in certain plants, especially those with higher extractive yield in the polar solvents, to provide these health benefits.
Furthermore, minerals in these plants can support the work of flavonoids since minerals like copper and zinc are linked to superoxide dismutase and catalase activity, which protects cells from oxidative stress [28]. The availability of such minerals in such plants continues to make the plants even better candidates for natural sources of bioactive compounds that can prevent cancer [29]. However, it should also be noted that the biochemical properties of such plants are rather diverse, and their potential application for cancer prevention might be determined by factors such as the extraction method, dose, and specific plant species. Although promising findings were obtained in this study, more studies about the bioavailability and efficacy of these plants in human health are required to reveal the therapeutic potential effectively.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the biochemical analysis of six edible plants and their wide nutritional and antioxidant content have been pointed out and affirmed their potential in dietary-based cancer prevention. Variation of the proximate composition (protein, fiber, and lipids) indicates that other species may present superior benefits in improving flavonoid availability and metabolic processes. The mineral content analysis shows the presence of such essential elements as potassium, calcium, and copper, which are critical to the functioning of antioxidant enzymes and metabolic health. The extractive yields show the efficiency of different solvents in the extraction of bioactive compounds. Ethanol and methanol are found to be the best solvents in the extraction of flavonoids and antioxidants. The high level of phenolics and flavonoids in some plants relates to its appreciable antioxidant activity that is necessary for counteracting oxidative stress & for reducing the risk of cancer. The plants provide a vivid understanding of natural dietary sources of flavonoids and antioxidants that may be used to prevent cancer. Diversifying their biochemical properties indicates the importance of selecting suitable plant species for therapy. Research in the future should direct further exploration of the phytochemicals present within the plants and their pharmacokinetics in human health concerning the dietary intervention use in cancer prevention.
Limitations and Future Recommendations
A significant limitation highlighted in this review is the low bioavailability of specific flavonoids, such as EGCG, quercetin, and resveratrol. This is primarily due to factors like rapid metabolism, poor Absorption, and instability in the human body, making clinical application challenging despite promising anticancer results from in vitro and animal studies. Moreover, because there are no large-scale randomized controlled trials, the results of these studies cannot be applied on large scales [30]. The differences in individual metabolism, determined by genetic and healthy microbiota factors, complicate standardized therapeutic protocols. To address these limitations, some recommendations are essential for further developing flavonoids in cancer prevention. First, the literature should be aimed at advanced drug delivery systems such as nanoparticles, liposomes and other carriers to ensure better solubility and stability of flavonoids. Second, well-designed clinical trials to include diverse populations are required to establish the safety and efficacy of flavonoid-based interventions [31]. Third, studying the interaction of the flavonoids with other dietary components or standard medications may increase the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Finally, individualized medicine, considering genetic and microflora differences in people, can optimize the efficacy of flavonoids in cancer treatment [32]. These steps are critical if we are to enhance our effectiveness in terms of exploiting flavonoids for cancer prevention and treatment.
References
- World Health Organization, W.H., WHO technical guidance notes on Sendai framework reporting for ministries of health. 2020: World Health Organization.
- Al-Khayri, J.M., et al., Flavonoids as potential anti-inflammatory molecules: A review. Molecules, 2022. 27(9): p. 2901.
- Hazafa, A., et al., The role of polyphenol (flavonoids) compounds in treating cancer cells. Nutrition and cancer, 2020. 72(3): p. 386-397.
- Abotaleb, M., et al., Flavonoids in cancer and apoptosis. Cancers, 2018. 11(1): p. 28.
- Tavsan, Z. and H.A. Kayali, Flavonoids showed anticancer effects on the ovarian cancer cells: Involvement of reactive oxygen species, apoptosis, cell cycle and invasion. Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy, 2019. 116: p. 109004.
- Kopustinskiene, D.M., et al., Flavonoids as anticancer agents. Nutrients, 2020. 12(2): p. 457.
- Li, G., et al., Flavonoids regulate inflammation and oxidative stress in cancer. Molecules, 2020. 25(23): p. 5628.
- Chen, L., et al., Absorption, metabolism and bioavailability of flavonoids: A review. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2022. 62(28): p. 7730-7742.
- Gonzales, G.B., et al., Flavonoid interactions during digestion, Absorption, distribution and metabolism: A sequential structure–activity/property relationship-based approach in the study of bioavailability and bioactivity. Drug metabolism reviews, 2015. 47(2): p. 175-190.
- Gan, R.-Y., et al., Absorption, metabolism, anti-cancer effect and molecular targets of epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG): An updated review. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2018. 58(6): p. 924-941.
- Mehmood, S., et al., Epigallocatechin gallate: Phytochemistry, bioavailability, utilization challenges, and strategies. Journal of Food Biochemistry, 2022. 46(8): p. e14189.
- Giménez-Bastida, J., et al., Human studies carried out with pomegranate-based products (juice and extract). 2021.
- Golonko, A., et al., Why do dietary flavonoids have a promising effect as enhancers of anthracyclines? hydroxyl substituents, bioavailability and biological activity. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2022. 24(1): p. 391.
- Murota, K., Y. Nakamura, and M. Uehara, Flavonoid metabolism: The interaction of metabolites and gut microbiota. Bioscience, biotechnology, and biochemistry, 2018. 82(4): p. 600-610.
- Xu A, Baysari MT, Stocker SL, Leow LJ, Day RO, Carland JE. Researchers’ views on, and experiences with, the requirement to obtain informed consent in research involving human participants: A qualitative study. BMC medical ethics. 2020 Dec;21:1-1.
- Campbell S, Greenwood M, Prior S, Shearer T, Walkem K, Young S, Bywaters D, Walker K. Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of research in Nursing. 2020 Dec;25(8):652-61.
- Manti S, Licari A. How to obtain informed consent for research. Breathe. 2018 May 31;14(2):145-52.
- Marranzano M, Ray S, Godos J, Galvano F. Association between dietary flavonoids intake and obesity in a cohort of adults living in the Mediterranean area. International journal of food sciences and nutrition. 2018 Nov 17;69(8):1020-9.
- Ullah A, Ameen K. Statistical analysis used in LIS research produced by Pakistani authors. Online Information Review. 2022 Jul 18;46(4):698-714.
- Mehjabin S, Akanda MK, Hoque N, Hasan AN, Parvez GM, Mosaddik A. Flavonoid Intake and Risk of Toxicity in Chronic Metabolic Disease. Role of Flavonoids in Chronic Metabolic Diseases: From Bench to Clinic. 2024 Oct 18:511-34.
- Floor D. Cancer-related lifestyle risk, knowledge, risk perception, and intention to screen in a socio-economically diverse urban population in South Africa.
- Alkan ŞB, Artaç M, Aksoy F, Belviranlı MM, Gürbilek M, Akay Çizmecioğlu H, Rakıcıoğlu N. Evaluating dietary antioxidant capacity, dietary inflammatory index and serum biomarkers in breast cancer: a prospective study. Nutrition and Cancer. 2023 Sep 14;75(8):1625-37.
- Carbine NE, Lostumbo L, Wallace J, Ko H. Risk‐reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018(4).
- Li H, Ren G, Cai R, Chen J, Wu X, Zhao J. Correlation research of Ki67 index, CT features, and risk stratification in the gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Cancer medicine. 2018 Sep;7(9):4467-74.
- Quesada-Morúa MS, Hidalgo O, Morera J, Rojas G, Pérez AM, Vaillant F, Fonseca L. Hypolipidaemic, hypoglycaemic and antioxidant effects of a tropical highland blackberry beverage consumption in healthy individuals on a high-fat, high-carbohydrate diet challenge. Journal of Berry Research. 2020 Sep 8;10(3):459-74.
- Bondonno NP, Dalgaard F, Kyrø C, Murray K, Bondonno CP, Lewis JR, Croft KD, Gislason G, Scalbert A, Cassidy A, Tjønneland A. Flavonoid intake is associated with lower mortality in the Danish Diet Cancer and Health Cohort. Nature communications. 2019 Aug 13;10(1):3651.
- Ruxton CH, Myers M. Fruit juices: are they helpful or harmful? An evidence review. Nutrients. 2021 May 27;13(6):1815.
- Gonzalez DE, Dickerson BL, Johnson SE, Woodruff KE, Leonard M, Yoo C, Ko J, Xing D, Martinez V, Kendra J, Estes L. Impact of astaxanthin supplementation on markers of cardiometabolic health and tactical performance among firefighters. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 2024 Dec 31;21(1):2427751.
- Ferraz CR, Carvalho TT, Manchope MF, Artero NA, Rasquel-Oliveira FS, Fattori V, Casagrande R, Verri Jr WA. Therapeutic potential of flavonoids in pain and inflammation: mechanisms of action, preclinical preclinical preclinical and clinical data, and pharmaceutical development. Molecules. 2020 Feb 10;25(3):762.
- Hu Q, Ma X, Cai T, Li Y. Flavonoid intake, inflammation, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in US adults: a cross-sectional study. Nutrition & Metabolism. 2025 Mar 18;22(1):24.
- Collyer, Michael L., and Dean C. Adams. “RRPP: An r package for fitting linear models to high‐dimensional data using residual randomization.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9, no. 7 (2018): 1772-1779.
- Liskova, Alena, Marek Samec, Lenka Koklesova, Aranka Brockmueller, Kevin Zhai, Basma Abdellatif, Manaal Siddiqui et al. “Flavonoids as an effective sensitizer for anti-cancer therapy: Insights into multi-faceted mechanisms and applicability towards individualized patient profiles.” Epma Journal 12, no. 2 (2021): 155-176.