| Literature DB >> 24250382 |
Raju Senthil Kumar1, Balasubramanian Rajkapoor, Perumal Perumal, Thangavel Dhanasekaran, Manonmani Alvin Jose, Chennakesavalu Jothimanivannan.
Abstract
The antitumor activity of ethanol extract of Prosopis glandulosa Torr. (EPG) was evaluated against Ehrlich ascites carcinoma (EAC) tumor model in Swiss albino mice on dose dependent manner. The activity was assessed using survival time, average increase in body weight, hematological parameters and solid tumor volume. Oral administration of EPG at the dose of 100, 200 and 400 mg/Kg, significantly (p < 0.001) increased the survival time and decreased the average body weight of the tumor bearing mice. After 14 days of inoculation, EPG was able to reverse the changes in the hematological parameters, protein and PCV consequent to tumor inoculation. Oral administration of EPG was effective in reducing solid tumor mass development induced by EAC cells. The results indicate that EPG possess significant antitumor activity on dose dependent manner.Entities:
Keywords: Ehrlich Ascites Carcinoma; Hematological Parameters; Life Span; Prosopis glandulosa; Solid tumor
Year: 2011 PMID: 24250382 PMCID: PMC3813020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Effect of EPG on median survival time and average increase in body weight of EAC tumor bearing mice
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor control | 16 ± 0.75 | - | 13.3 ± 0.61 |
| 5-FU (20 mg/Kg, IP) | 31 ± 0.41* | 93.75 | 4.0 ± 0.44* |
| EPG (100 mg/Kg) | 26 ± 0.92** | 62.5 | 8.3 ± 0.84 * |
| EPG (200 mg/Kg) | 28 ± 0.76* | 75 | 5.3 ± 0.66* |
| EPG (400 mg/Kg) | 32 ± 0.21* | 100 | 4.3 ± 0.36* |
N = 6 animals in each group.Values are expressed as mean ± SEM.
*p < 0.001; **p < 0.01 when compared with control. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s test
Effect of EPG on hematological parameters of EAC-bearing mice
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hb (gm %) | 16.33 ± 1.1 | 5.9 ± 0.26 | 10.3 ± 1.64 | 11.5 ± 0.72 | 14.4 ± 0.21* | |
|
| 4.4 ± 0.2 | 2.7 ± 0.76 | 0.97 ± 3.7 | 4.05 ± 1.16 | 3.86 ± 0.21* | |
| WBC (103 cells/mm3) | 6.5 ± 0.1 | 13.7 ± 1.72 | 9.4 ± 1.3 | 8.1 ± 1.1 | 9.42 ± 0.1* | |
| Protein (mg %) | 8.5 ± 0.22 | 12.4 ± 1.7 | 9.8 ± 1.1*** | 8.12 ± 0.9 | 8.33 ± 0.3** | |
| PCV (mm) | 16.6 ± 0.21 | 34.33 ± 2.45 | 29 ± 2.7* | 24 ± 2.16** | 17.3 ± 0.22** | |
| Differential | Lymphocytes | 70.7 ± 1.1 | 60 ± 3.92 | 76 ± 3.64* | 83 ± 4.74* | 65.5 ± 0.21* |
| Neutrophils | 30.3 ± 0.21 | 38 ± 3.2 | 23 ± 1.36** | 15 ± 1.82 | 27.8 ± 0.25* | |
| Monocytes | 1 ± 0 | 1 ± 0 | 1 ± 0 | 2 ± 0 | 1 ± 0 | |
N = 5 animals in each group. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM.
* p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.05 when compared with control. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s test.
Effect of EPG on solid tumor volume
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Tumor control | 3.99 ± 0.23 | 4.63 ± 0.26 | 5.13 ± 0.41 | 6.62 ± 0.38 | |
| EPG (100 mg/Kg, p.o) | 2.56 ± 0.28* | 3.09 ± 0.51* | 3.13 ± 0.68* | 4.26 ± 0.18* | |
| EPG (200 mg/Kg, p.o) | 2.13 ± 0.21* | 3.58 ± 0.16* | 3.86 ± 0.21* | 4.21 ± 0.1* | |
| EPG (400 mg/Kg, p.o) | 2.27 ± 0.37* | 3.27 ± 0.37* | 3.66 ± 0.19* | 4.17 ± 0.21* | |
N = 6 animals in each group. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM.
*p < 0.001when compared with control. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s test.