| Literature DB >> 22395408 |
Ibrahim Abdel Aziz Ibrahim1, Suhailah Wasmn Qader, Mahmood Ameen Abdulla, Amal R Nimir, Siddig Ibrahim Abdelwahab, Fouad Hussain Al-Bayaty.
Abstract
Current anti-gastric ulcer agents have side effects, despite the progression and expansion of advances in treatment. This study aimed to investigate the gastroprotective mechanisms of Pithecellobium jiringa ethanol extract against ethanol-induced gastric mucosal ulcers in rats. For this purpose, Sprague Dawley rats were randomly divided into five groups: Group 1 (normal control) rats were orally administered with vehicle (carboxymethyl cellulose), Group 2 (ulcer control) rats were also orally administered with vehicle. Group 3 (positive control) rats were orally administered with 20 mg/kg omeprazole, Groups 4 and 5 (experimental groups) received ethanol extract of Pithecellobium jiringa ethanol extract at a concentration of 250 and 500 mg/kg, respectively. Sixty minutes later, vehicle was given orally to the normal control group, and absolute ethanol was given orally to the ulcer control, positive control and experimental groups to generate gastric mucosal injury. The rats were sacrificed an hour later. The effect of oral administration of plant extract on ethanol-induced gastric mucosal injury was studied grossly and histology. The level of lipid peroxidation (malondialdehyde-MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD) and gastric wall mucus were measured from gastric mucosal homogenate. The ulcer control group exhibited severe gastric mucosal injury, and this finding was also confirmed by histology of gastric mucosa which showed severe damage to the gastric mucosa with edema and leucocyte infiltration of the submucosal layer. Pre-treatment with plant extract significantly reduced the formation of ethanol-induced gastric lesions, and gastric wall mucus was significantly preserved. The study also indicated a significant increase in SOD activity in gastric mucosal homogenate, whereas a significant decrease in MDA was observed. Acute toxicity tests did not show any signs of toxicity and mortality up to 5 g/kg. The ulcer protective effect of this plant may possibly be due to its preservation of gastric wall mucus along with increased SOD activity and reduction of oxidative stress (MDA). The extract is non-toxic, even at relatively high concentrations.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22395408 PMCID: PMC6268751 DOI: 10.3390/molecules17032796
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Histological sections of liver and kidney after the acute toxicity test. Rats (1a and 1b) treated with vehicle (CMC). Rats (1c and 1d) treated with 0.5 g/kg P. jiringa extract. Rats (1e and 1f) treated with 2 g/kg P. jiringa extract. There is no significant differences in structures of liver and kidney between treated and control groups (H & E stain 20×).
Renal function test of rats in acute toxicity study of P. jiringa extract.
| Dose (5 mL/kg) | Sodium (mmol/L) | Pottasium (mmol/L) | Chloride (mmol/L) | CO2 (mmol/L) | Anion gap (mmol/L) | Urea (mmol/L) | Creatinine (µmol/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vehicle (CMC) | 137.25 ± 0.41 | 5.03 ± 0.17 | 102.03 ± 0.15 | 23.03 ± 0.82 | 18.16 ± 0.72 | 5.63 ± 0.41 | 50.18 ± 1.34 |
| LD (0.5 g/kg) | 137.11 ± 0.42 | 5.21 ± 0.15 | 103.61 ± 1.22 | 21.74 ± 0.17 | 17.07 ± 1.35 | 4.96 ± 0.43 | 48.97 ± 0.81 |
| HD (2 g/kg) | 137.21 ± 0.50 | 5.12 ± 0.14 | 103.07 ± 0.76 | 22.8 ± 0.86 | 17.73 ± 0.51 | 5.93 ± 0.39 | 48.60 ± 1.80 |
Values expressed as mean ± S.E.M. There are no significant differences between groups. Significant value at p < 0.05.
Liver function test of rats in acute toxicity study of P. jiringa extract.
| Dose (5 mL/kg) | Total protein (g/L) | Albumin (g/L) | Globulin (g/L) | TB (µmol/L) | CB (µmol/L) | AP(IU/L) | ALT(IU/L) | AST(IU/L) | GGT(IU/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vehicle (CMC) | 72.33 ± 1.44 | 11.39 ± 0.51 | 59.09 ± 1.37 | 1.96 ± 0.19 | 0.96 ± 0.16 | 134.78 ± 9.51 | 53.05 ± 3.24 | 154.61 ± 9.37 | 4.96 ± 0.93 |
| LD (0.5 g/kg) | 71.41 ± 0.52 | 11.65 ± 0.33 | 59.45 ± 0.38 | 2.12 ± 0.15 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 133.37 ± 8.66 | 51.90 ± 1.37 | 156.07 ± 3.66 | 5.03 ± 1.28 |
| HD (2 g/kg) | 71.84 ± 1.03 | 11.62 ± 0.14 | 60.11 ± 0.68 | 1.84 ± 0.24 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 134.13 ± 6.55 | 52.21 ± 3.22 | 155.02 ± 5.38 | 5.38 ± 1.09 |
Values expressed as mean ± S.E.M. There are no significant differences between groups. p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. TB: Total bilirubin; CB: Conjugated bilirubin; AP: Alkaline phosphatase; ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; GGT: G-Glutamyl Transferase.
Figure 2Gross appearance of the gastric mucosa in rats. (a) Rats pre-treated with CMC (normal control). No disturbance of gastric mucosa. (b) Rats pre-treated with CMC (ulcer control). Severe injuries are seen in the gastric mucosa. Absolute ethanol produced extensive visible hemorrhagic necrosis of gastric mucosa. (c) Rats pre-treated with of omeprazole (20 mg/kg). Injuries to the gastric mucosa are much milder compared to the injuries seen in the ulcer control rats. (d) Rats pre-treated with P. jiringa (250 mg/kg). Moderate injuries to the gastric mucosa are seen. (e) Rat pre-treated with P. jiringa (500 mg/kg). Mild injuries are seen in the gastric mucosa; and flattening of the gastric mucosa is seen.
Effect of P. jiringa on ethanol-induced changes in gastric wall mucus, Superoxide dismutase, Lipid peroxidation and ulcers areain rats.
| Group | Pre-treatment (5 mL/kg) | Post-treatment (5 mL/kg) | Gastric wall mucus (µg Alcian blue/g wet stomach) | SOD (mU of SOD/mg tissue) | MDA (μmol of MDA/mg tissue) | ulcers area (mm2) Mean ± SEM | Inhibition (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GI | CMC | CMC | 930.50 + 27.44 a | 165.35 ± 7.68 a | 30.24 ± 4.09 a | - | - |
| GII | CMC | Absolute ethanol | 562.21 + 21.33 b | 75.15 ± 4.29 b | 91.67 ± 6.12 b | 836.67 ± 2.06 a | - |
| GIII | 20 mg/kgOmeprazole | Absolute ethanol | 815.07 + 25.17 c | 135.18 ± 5.94 a | 44.06 ± 4.88 c | 68.33 ± 2.05 b | 92.01 |
| GIV | 250 mg/kg
| Absolute ethanol | 795.67 + 19.98 c | 152.33 ± 5.79 a | 47.17 ± 3.97 c | 228.17 ± 1.51c | 72.17 |
| GV | 500 mg/kg
| Absolute ethanol | 857.26 + 26.03 c | 162.06 ± 6.17 a | 40.08 ± 4.36 c | 156.33 ± 1.84 d | 80.55 |
All values are expressed as mean ± standard error mean. Means with different superscripts are significantly different. The mean difference is significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Figure 3Histological study of the absolute ethanol-induced gastric mucosal damage in rats. (a) Rats pre-treated with CMC (normal control). No disturbance of gastric mucosa. (b) Rats pre-treated with CMC (ulcer control). There is severe disruption to the surface epithelium and necrotic lesions penetrate deeply into mucosa (orange arrow) and extensive edema of submucosal layer and leucocytes infiltration are present (white arrow). (c) Rats pre-treated with omeprazole (20 mg/kg). Very mild disruption of the surface epithelium mucosa is present, but deep mucosal damage is absent. (d) Rats pre-treated with P. jiringa (250 mg/kg). There is moderate disruption to the surface epithelium (orange arrow) with edema and leucocyte infiltration of the submucosal layer (white arrow). (e) Rat pre-treated with P. jiringa (500 mg/kg). Mild disruptions of surface epithelium are present but deep mucosal damage is absent (orange arrow). There is slight edema with leucocyte infiltration of the submucosal layer (white arrow) (H&E stain 10×).