| Literature DB >> 22654592 |
Felipe Meira de-Faria1, Ana Cristina Alves Almeida, Anderson Luiz-Ferreira, Christiane Takayama, Ricardo José Dunder, Marcelo Aparecido da Silva, Marcos José Salvador, Patrícia Verardi Abdelnur, Marcos Nogueira Eberlin, Wagner Vilegas, Walber Toma, Alba Regina Monteiro Souza-Brito.
Abstract
Rhizophora mangle, the red mangrove, has long been known as a traditional medicine. Its bark has been used as astringent, antiseptic, hemostatic, with antifungic and antiulcerogenic properties. In this paper, we aimed to evaluate the antioxidant properties of a buthanolic fraction of the R. mangle bark extract (RM) against experimental gastric ulcer in rats. Unib-Wh rats received pretreatment of R. mangle after the induction of gastric injury with absolute ethanol and ischemia-reperfusion. Gastric tissues from both methods were prepared to the enzymatic assays, the levels of sulfhydril compounds (GSH), lipid peroxides (LPO), and the activities of glutathione reductase (GR), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), superoxide dismutase (SOD) and myeloperoxidase (MPO) were measured. The RM protected the gastric mucosa in both methods used, ethanol-induced gastric ulcer and ischemia-reperfusion, probably, by modulating the activities of the enzymes SOD, GPx, and GR and increasing or maintaining the levels of GSH; in addition, LPO levels were reduced. The results suggest that the RM antioxidant activity leads to tissue protection; thus one of the antiulcer mechanisms present on the pharmacological effects of R. mangle is the antioxidant property.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22654592 PMCID: PMC3361174 DOI: 10.1100/2012/327071
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1ESI/MS negative mode mass spectra fingerprint of the tannins of R. mangle concentrated in the buthanolic fraction (RM). The molecule presented is a condensed tannin monomer which is the relative major molecule in RM identified as catechin (epi) heteroside.
Figure 2Effect of pretreatment with RM on ethanol-induced gastric ulcer in rats. The animals received 0.9% saline solution (vehicle), lansoprazole (30 mg kg−1), and RM (0.5, 1.5, and 3.0 mg kg−1); sham group represents the manipulated animals. The results are expressed as mean ± s.d. (n = 8), and statistical significance was determined by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett's post-hoc t test, (P < 0.05* and P < 0.001***).
Figure 3Effect of pretreatment with RM on ischemia-reperfusion-induced gastric ulcer in rats. The animals received 0.9% saline solution (vehicle), lansoprazole (30 mg kg−1), and RM (0.5 mg kg−1); sham group represents the manipulated animals. The results are expressed as mean ± s.d. (n = 8), and statistical significance was determined by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett's post hoc t test, with the level of significance set at P < 0.001***.
RM radical scavenging on DPPH, antioxidant capacity in ORAC-FL assay, and fractions and phenolic compounds content in Folin-Ciocalteu.
| Treatments | DPPH EC50
a ( | ORAC assaya, b ( | Folin-Ciocalteua, c (mg of GAE g−1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quercetin | 2.924 ± 1.666 | 5.62 ± 0.690d | — |
| RM | 8.065 ± 2.369 | 8611.19 ± 0.312 | 226.7 ± 2.655 |
aMean ± standard deviation of triplicate assays.
bORAC data expressed as micromol of Trolox equivalents per gram (μmol of TE/g).
cTotal phenolics data expressed as milligrams of gallic acid equivalents per gram (mg of GAE/g).
dPositive control, ORAC data expressed as relative Trolox equivalent, mean ± standard deviation of triplicate assays.
Effect of RM on the antioxidant compounds and enzymes in ethanol-induced gastric ulcer in rats.
| Treatments | Dose (mg kg−1) | GSH (nmol mg of protein−1) | SOD (U mg of protein−1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saline | 10 (mL kg−1) | 5.88 ± 0.379 | 2.24 ± 1.315 |
| Sham | — | 14.58 ± 1.091* | 28.82 ± 2.888*** |
| Lansoprazole | 30 | 10.53 ± 0.867 | 4.29 ± 3.006 |
| RM | 0.5 | 21.44 ± 0.956*** | 21.87 ± 3.314*** |
|
| |||
| Treatments | Dose (mg kg−1) | GPx (nmol min−1 mg of protein−1) | GR (nmol min−1 mg of protein−1) |
|
| |||
| Saline | 10 (mL kg−1) | 50.01 ± 4.248 | 11.00 ± 1.220 |
| Sham | — | 103.8 ± 5.556*** | 20.56 ± 2.995*** |
| Lansoprazole | 30 | 61.17 ± 4.976 | 11.26 ± 1.067 |
| RM | 0.5 | 96.66 ± 3.550*** | 16.94 ± 1.305* |
|
| |||
| Treatments | Dose (mg kg−1) | LPO (nmol TBARS mg of protein−1) | MPO (U mg of protein−1) |
|
| |||
| Saline | 10 (mL kg−1) | 2.98 ± 0.007 | 2.51 ± 1.013 |
| Sham | — | 2.29 ± 0.0280* | 1.57 ± 1.730** |
| Lansoprazole | 30 | 2.47 ± 0.307 | 1.74 ± 0.233* |
| RM | 0.5 | 2.14 ± 0.117** | 1.75 ± 0.136* |
The results are expressed as mean ± s.e.m. (n = 8); statistical significance was determined by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett's post hoc t test (P < 0.05*, P < 0.01** and P < 0.001***).
Effect of RM on the antioxidant compounds and enzymes in ischemia-reperfusion-induced gastric ulcer in rats.
| Treatments | Dose (mg kg−1) | GSH (nmol mg of protein−1) | SOD (U mg of protein−1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saline | 10 (mL kg−1) | 13.39 ± 1.923 | 10.61 ± 0.304 |
| Sham | — | 23.26 ± 0.802** | 13.42 ± 1.987 |
| Lansoprazole | 30 | 18. 91 ± 2.036 | 25.14 ± 2.363*** |
| RM | 0.5 | 20.93 ± 1.535* | 18.48 ± 1.882* |
|
| |||
| Treatments | Dose (mg kg−1) | GPx (nmol min−1 mg of protein) | GR (nmol min−1 mg of protein−1) |
|
| |||
| Saline | 10 (mL kg−1) | 13.58 ± 1.011 | 18.00 ± 1.015 |
| Sham | — | 15.60 ± 1.612 | 18.44 ± 0.888 |
| Lansoprazole | 30 | 13.47 ± 0.967 | 18.94 ± 0.705 |
| RM | 0.5 | 21.96 ± 1.917** | 26.86 ± 2.341** |
|
| |||
| Treatments | Dose (mg kg−1) | LPO (nmol TBARS−1 mg of protein−1) | MPO (U mg of protein−1) |
|
| |||
| Saline | 10 (mL kg−1) | 2.43 ± 0.111 | 2.43 ± 0.127 |
| Sham | — | 1.77 ± 0.117* | 1.25 ± 0.168*** |
| Lansoprazole | 30 | 2.23 ± 0.176 | 2.21 ± 0.079 |
| RM | 0.5 | 1.758 ± 0.141* | 1.86 ± 0.128* |
The results are expressed as mean ± s.e.m. (n = 8), statistical significance was determined by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett's post hoc t test, (P < 0.05*, P < 0.01**, and P < 0.001***).