Table 3 |
|||||
|
Regression analysis of polyphenolic content from the methanolic bran extracts of different rice varieties with DPPH radical scavenging, Nitric oxide (NO) scavenging, Total Antioxidant Assay (TAA), MTT assay and Reducing Power (RP). |
|||||
|
TPC vs DPPH scavenging |
TPC vs NO scavenging |
TPC vs TAA |
TPC vs MTT assay |
TPC vs RP |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Vasumathi |
|||||
|
R2 value |
0.9678 |
0.9163 |
0.9624 |
0.9521 |
0.9120 |
|
Slope |
6.435366 |
3.385976 |
0.0870031 |
-0.0743902 |
0.0077537 |
|
P value |
0.0025 |
0.0105 |
0.0031 |
0.0045 |
0.0114 |
|
Growth rate |
66.18 |
61.46 |
30.93 |
-20.63 |
57.52 |
|
|
|||||
|
Yamini |
|||||
|
R2 value |
0.9367 |
0.9067 |
0.9074 |
0.9267 |
0.9029 |
|
Slope |
4.82466 |
3.172851 |
0.0123 |
-0.0579186 |
0.0123534 |
|
P value |
0.0069 |
0.0125 |
0.0849 |
0.0086 |
0.0132 |
|
Growth rate |
51.68 |
60.85 |
32.24 |
-23.35 |
59.25 |
|
|
|||||
|
Jyothi |
|||||
|
R2 value |
0.9615 |
0.9831 |
0.9705 |
0.9388 |
0.9777 |
|
Slope |
2.045763 |
2.002225 |
0.0472744 |
-0.025 |
0.0089229 |
|
P value |
0.0033 |
0.0009 |
0.0022 |
0.0066 |
0.0014 |
|
Growth rate |
37.95 |
61.04 |
30.51 |
-30.9 |
41.61 |
|
|
|||||
|
Njavara |
|||||
|
R2 value |
0.9287 |
0.9733 |
0.9538 |
0.9233 |
0.9848 |
|
Slope |
1.199922 |
1.561774 |
0.039325 |
-0.0171115 |
0.0101612 |
|
P value |
0.0083 |
0.0019 |
0.0043 |
0.0092 |
0.0008 |
|
Growth rate |
25.28 |
46.37 |
27.86 |
-38.09 |
46.91 |
|
|
|||||
|
R2 values are the regression coefficients by the least -- squared fits and P = probability values. In all the experiments number of observations (n) = 5. |
|||||
|
Rao et al. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2010 10:4 doi:10.1186/1472-6882-10-4 |
|||||
