| Literature DB >> 24058369 |
Hamidah Mohd Yusof1, Norlaily Mohd Ali, Swee Keong Yeap, Wan Yong Ho, Boon Kee Beh, Soo Peng Koh, Kamariah Long, Suraini Abdul Aziz, Noorjahan Banu Alitheen.
Abstract
Recently, soybean tempeh has received great attention due to many advantages such as higher nutritional value, lower production cost, and shorter fermentation time. In this study, the in vivo hepatoprotective and antioxidant effects of nutrient enriched soybean tempeh (NESTE) were determined. NESTE fermentation process which involved anaerobic incubation was previously proclaimed to increase the content of amino acids and antioxidant properties remarkably. The evaluation of histological sections, serum biochemical markers (aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and cholesterol and triglycerides (TG)), liver immune response level (nitric oxide (NO)) and liver antioxidant level (superoxide dismutase (SOD), ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), and malondialdehyde (MDA)) was conducted in order to compare the effects of nonfermented soybean extract (SBE) and fermented soybean extract (NESTE) on alcohol-induced liver damage in mice. Results demonstrated that 1000 mg/kg of NESTE can significantly reduce the levels of AST, ALT, cholesterol, TG, MDA, and NO. On the other hand, it also raised the level of SOD and FRAP. Furthermore, the histological examination on 1000 mg/kg NESTE treatment group showed that this extract was capable of recovering the damaged hepatocytes to their normal structures. Thus, it can be concluded that NESTE produced through fermentation process was able to enhance hepatoprotective and antioxidant effects in vivo.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24058369 PMCID: PMC3766609 DOI: 10.1155/2013/274274
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Serum biochemical parameter of liver protective effect of different experimental group.
| Treatment | ALT (U/L)1 | AST (U/L)1 | Cholesterol (mmol/L)1 | TG (mmol/L)1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal control (PBS) | 14.09 ± 1.53a | 98.16 ± 1.99a | 3.14 ± 0.39a | 1.48 ± 0.23a |
| Ethanol control (50% ETOH + PBS) | 48.11 ± 1.78 | 367.30 ± 1.10 | 4.83 ± 0.3 | 3.87 ± 0.3 |
| Positive control (50% ETOH + silybin (50 mg/kg)) | 26.72 ± 1.20a | 171.70 ± 3.79a | 4.11 ± 0.8a | 2.53 ± 0.4a |
| 50% ETOH + SBE (200 mg/kg) | 35.14 ± 4.50a | 183.28 ± 7.28a | 3.26 ± 0.11a | 2.16 ± 0.16a |
| 50% ETOH + SBE (1000 mg/kg) | 25.85 ± 6.49 | 174.49 ± 1.15 | 2.99 ± 0.29a | 2.03 ± 0.01a |
| 50% ETOH + NESTE (200 mg/kg) | 23.28 ± 4.50a | 168.39 ± 3.42a | 3.22 ± 0.26a | 2.88 ± 0.26a |
| 50% ETOH + NESTE (1000 mg/kg) | 18.50 ± 3.00a | 157.62 ± 3.53a | 3.08 ± 0.44a | 1.94 ± 1.85a |
1Values are expressed as mean ± S.E.M (n = 8), avalues are significantly different from ethanol control (P < 0.05), ALT: alanine transaminase, AST: aspartate transaminase, TG: triglyceride.
Liver protective effect on liver homogenate parameters of different experimental groups.
| Treatment | MDA | NO | SOD | FRAP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal control (PBS) | 3.20 ± 0.22a | 10.13 ± 0.18a | 17.17 ± 0.74a | 9.42 ± 1.0 a |
| Ethanol control (50% ETOH + PBS) | 7.25 ± 0.08 | 15.09 ± 0.86 | 12.46 ± 2.51 | 5.28 ± 0.01 |
| Positive control (50% ETOH + silybin (50 mg/kg)) | 4.95 ± 0.08a | 10.20 ± 3.08a | 18.54 ± 0.37a | 15.02 ± 0.07a |
| 50% ETOH + SBE (200 mg/kg) | 3.02 ± 0.25a | 9.55 ± 0.35a | 19.38 ± 0.10a | 6.59 ± 0.03 |
| 50% ETOH + SBE (1000 mg/kg) | 2.93 ± 0.34a | 9.54 ± 0.04a | 20.08 ± 1.58a | 6.24 ± 0.04 |
| 50% ETOH + NESTE (200 mg/kg) | 2.22 ± 0.17a | 9.55 ± 0.58a | 19.44 ± 0.67a | 9.42 ± 0.02a |
| 50% ETOH + NESTE (1000 mg/kg) | 1.34 ± 0.23a | 8.45 ± 0.27a | 20.53 ± 0.24a | 12.78 ± 0.10a |
1Values are expressed as mean ± S.E.M (n = 8), avalues are significantly different from ethanol control (P < 0.05), MDA: malondialdehyde, NO: nitric oxide, SOD: superoxide dismutase, FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power.
Figure 1Histopathological microsection of liver of different experimental groups. The histopathological microsection of liver was stained with hematoxylin and eosin and captured via the light microscope with the magnification of 10 × 10. (a) Normal control with normal structure of liver cells, (b) ethanol control with a several-hepatocyte condition which has developed a microvesicular steatosis as indicated by the dashed line arrows, (c) positive control with a minimal condition of microvesicular steatosis, (d) 50% ETOH + 200 mg/kg SBE-treated group with the obvious development of microvesicular steatosis, (e) 50% ETOH + 1000 mg/kg SBE-treated group with recovery effect from microvesicular steatosis, (f) 50% ETOH + 200 mg/kg NESTE-treated group with some obvious development of microvesicular steatosis, and (g) 50% ETOH + 1000 mg/kg NESTE-treated group with recovery effect from microvesicular steatosis. H = hepatocyte, S = sinusoidal space, ⇢ hepatocyte developed with microvesicular steatosis.