| Literature DB >> 20032872 |
Pimolpan Pithayanukul1, Saruth Nithitanakool, Rapepol Bavovada.
Abstract
Aqueous extracts from seeds of Areca catechu L. (Arecaceae) (AC) and nutgalls of Quercus infectoria Oliv. (Fagaceae) (QI) were investigated for their hepatoprotective potential by studying their antioxidant capacity using four different methods, by determining their in vitro anti-inflammatory activity against 5-lipoxygenase, and by evaluating their hepatoprotective potential against liver injury induced by carbon tetrachloride (CCl(4)) in rats. AC and QI extracts exhibited potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities. Treatment of rats with AC and QI extracts reversed oxidative damage in hepatic tissues induced by CCl(4). It is suggested that extracts rich in either condensed or hydrolysable tannins and known for their potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities, may potentially confer protection against oxidative stress-induced liver injury. These data should contribute to evidence-based traditional medicines for anti-inflammatory and hepatoprotective effects of both extracts.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 20032872 PMCID: PMC6254840 DOI: 10.3390/molecules14124987
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Effect of AC, QI and the positive reference (BHA) on lipid peroxidation of linoleic acid emulsion, as measured by formation of ferric thiocyanate. (A) Time course of linoleic acid peroxidation in the absence or presence of samples at 100 µg/mL concentration. (B) Percentage inhibition of lipid peroxidation as a function of sample concentration on day 8 of peroxidation. * No significantly different (p > 0.05) between percentage inhibition of BHA, AC and QI at concentration ≥ 100 µg/mL.
Figure 2The reduction of DPPH radical measured by the decrease of absorbance at 515 nm, as a function of concentration of test samples and the reference antioxidant (AsA). The ΔA values, obtained after 30 min of reaction, are relative to those of the control excluding added samples or standard.
The concentration giving 50% inhibition of DPPH radical, hydroxyl radical, iron(II) chelating capacity and lipoxygenase activities of test samples and standard references. The values represent mean ± S.E.M. (n = 3).
| Test samples | DPPH radical (SC50, µg/mL) | Hydroxyl radical (SC50, µg/mL) | Iron(II)-chelating (IC50, µg/mL) | Anti-lipoxygenase (IC50, µg/mL ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACa | 1.38 ± 0.08b | 1,150.00 ± 0.00 b | 2,966.67 ± 50.01 b | 25.07 ± 0.23 b |
| QIa | 0.98 ± 0.05 b | 415.00 ± 15.00 b | 6,100.00 ± 5.49 b | 31.77 ± 0.54 b |
| Reference standards: | ||||
| Ascorbic acid (AsA) | 2.21 ± 0.06 | - | - | - |
| - | 8,150.00 ± 20.00 | - | - | |
| EDTA | - | - | 5.35 ± 0.15 | - |
| Nordihydroguaiaretic acid (NDGA) | - | - | - | 59.50 ± 1.04 |
a Concentration of AC and QI was calculated based on gallic acid equivalents (GAE);
b Significantly different from the standard reference (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Hydroxyl radical scavenging activity of test samples (AC and QI) and the positive reference (D-mannitol) were spectrophotometrically measured at 532 nm using the deoxyribose assay.
Effect of AC and QI on serum ALT, AST and hepatic MDA in liver injury induced by CCl4 in rats. Values are mean ± SEM of five rats.
| Groups | ALT | AST | MDA |
|---|---|---|---|
| (U/L) | (U/L) | (nmol/g liver) | |
| Normal | 26.29 ± 2.31 | 60.40 ± 4.33 | 0.02 ± 0.00 |
| CCl4 | 201.68a ± 12.09 | 210.60a ± 6.15 | 0.08a ± 0.01 |
| AC (500 mg/kg) + CCl4 | 170.61b ± 4.38 | 176.91b ± 8.34 | 0.06b ± 0.00 |
| (17.71%)c | (22.43%)c | (33.33%) c | |
| AC (1,000 mg/kg) + CCl4 | 115.22b ± 8.58 | 154.44b ± 8.44 | 0.05b ± 0.00 |
| (49.30%)c | (37.39%)c | (50.00%)c,e | |
| AC (2,000 mg/kg) + CCl4 | 52.22b ± 12.18 | 89.48b ± 9.89 | 0.04b ± 0.01 |
| (85.22%)c,e | (80.64%)c,e | (66.67%)c,e | |
| AC (2,000 mg/kg) | 26.67d ± 6.62 | 80.83d ± 12.71 | 0.03d ± 0.00 |
| QI (500 mg/kg) + CCl4 | 170.85b ± 5.84 | 169.47b ± 4.06 | 0.06b ± 0.01 |
| (17.58%)c | (27.38%)c | (33.33%)c | |
| QI (1,000 mg/kg) + CCl4 | 134.03b ± 4.00 | 141.74b ± 17.98 | 0.05b ± 0.00 |
| (38.57%)c | (45.85%)c | (50.00%)c,e | |
| QI (2,000 mg/kg) + CCl4 | 62.57b ± 21.52 | 96.09b ± 16.87 | 0.04b ± 0.01 |
| (79.31%)c,e | (76.24%)c,e | (66.67%)c,e | |
| QI (2,000 mg/kg) | 29.87d ± 7.70 | 84.14d ± 19.10 | 0.03d ± 0.00 |
| Silymarin (100 mg/kg) + CCl4 | 80.78b ± 34.52 | 98.57b ± 24.71 | 0.05b ± 0.01 |
| (68.93%)c | (74.59%)c | (50.00%)c |
a Significantly different from the control group (p < 0.05); b Significantly different from the group treated with CCl4 only (p < 0.05); c Percent protection in individual biochemical parameters (ALT, AST and MDA) from their elevated values caused by CCl4. The percent protection was calculated as 100 × (values of CCl4 control−values of sample)/(values of CCl4 control−values of control); d No significant difference compared with the control group (p > 0.05). e No significant difference compared with the positive reference (silymarin) group (p > 0.05).
Figure 4Histopathological changes of the liver (H and E, 200×) (A) normal control group, (B) CCl4 group, (C-E) extract treatment groups (CCl4 + AC 500, 1,000 and 2,000 mg/kg, respectively), (F) AC (2,000 mg/kg) alone, (G-I) extract treatment groups (CCl4 + QI 500, 1,000 and 2,000 mg/kg, respectively), (J) QI (2,000 mg/kg) alone and (K) CCl4 + silymarin (100 mg/kg) (CV, central vein).