| Literature DB >> 24350249 |
Mohammed Safwan Ali Khan1, Abdul Manan Mat Jais2, Adiba Afreen3.
Abstract
The present study was conducted to evaluate the antiulcerogenic effect and recognize the basic mechanism of action of Tabernaemontana divaricata (L.) R. Br. flowers. T. divaricata flower methanolic extract (TDFME) was screened for antiulcer activity versus aspirin and ethanol induced gastric ulcers at three doses--125, 250, and 500 mg/kg--orally using misoprostol as a standard. Besides histopathological examination, seven parameters, that is, ulcer index, total protein, nonprotein sulphhydryls, mucin, catalase, malondialdehyde, and superoxide dismutase levels, were estimated. In addition to HPLC profiling, GC-MS analysis and electrospray ionization--high resolution mass spectral (ESI-HRMS) analysis of crude TDFME were carried out in an attempt to identify known phytochemicals present in the extract on the basis of m/z value. The results revealed a significant increase in the levels of catalase, superoxide dismutase, mucin, and nonprotein sulphhydryls, while they revealed a reduction in ulcer index, the levels of total protein, and malondialdehyde. Histopathological observations also demonstrated the protective effect. Though all the doses of TDFME exhibited gastroprotective function, higher doses were found to be more effective. Mass spectral analysis gave a few characteristic m/z values suggesting the presence of a few known indole alkaloids, while HPLC profiling highlighted the complexity of the extract. TDFME was found to exhibit its gastroprotective effect through antioxidant mechanism and by enhancing the production of gastric mucous.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24350249 PMCID: PMC3856123 DOI: 10.1155/2013/185476
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Results of ethanol induced gastric ulcers model.
| Parameters | Negative control | Standard | Test-I | Test-II | Test-III |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catalase | 2.89 ± 0.11 (0.27) | 4.09 ± 0.18 (0.44)b | 3.86 ± 0.12 (0.49)a | 3.94 ± 0.20 (0.49)a | 4.23 ± 0.38 (0.94)b |
| Malondialdehyde | 7.11 ± 0.30 (0.74) | 2.69 ± 0.23 (0.57)c | 5.64 ± 0.29 (0.73)b | 4.94 ± 0.16 (0.40)c | 3.58 ± 0.24 (0.60)c |
| Mucin content | 0.52 ± 0.06 (0.15) | 1.07 ± 0.11 (0.27)b | 0.95 ± 0.15 (0.37)a | 1.15 ± 0.10 (0.24)b | 1.89 ± 0.11 (0.29)c |
| Nonprotein sulphhydryl concentration | 2.31 ± 0.18 (0.45) | 4.55 ± 0.17 (0.42)c | 3.00 ± 0.19 (0.47)b | 3.07 ± 0.09 (0.24)b | 4.98 ± 0.00 (0.23)c |
| Superoxide dismutase | 2.75 ± 0.35 (0.86) | 5.99 ± 0.31 (0.78)c | 2.44 ± 0.30 (0.74)ns | 4.05 ± 0.23 (0.57)a | 4.07 ± 0.24 (0.59)a |
| Total protein content | 342.5 ± 4.09 (10.03) | 313.2 ± 3.22 (7.91)c | 321.7 ± 4.68 (11.47)b | 316.5 ± 5.50 (13.49)b | 251.7 ± 4.15 (10.17)c |
| Ulcer index | 10 ± 0.28 (0.70) | 4.50 ± 0.42 (1.04)c | 7.08 ± 0.58 (1.42)c | 4.00 ± 0.36 (0.89)c | 1.50 ± 0.46 (1.14)c |
Note: sample size (n) = 6 rats per group. Data is expressed as Mean ± Standard Error of Mean and Standard Deviation in parenthesis. a P < 0.05, b P < 0.01, c P < 0.001 and nsnonsignificant versus negative control (on statistical analysis with ANOVA, followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison post-hoc test).
Figure 1Photos of rat's stomachs subjected to aspirin induced gastric ulcers. Note: (a) standard (misoprostol 100 μg/kg); (b) test-I (TDFME 125 mg/kg); (c) test-II (TDFME 250 mg/kg); (d) test-III (TDFME 500 mg/kg).
Results of Aspirin induced gastric ulcers model.
| Parameters | Negative control | Standard | Test-I | Test-II | Test-III |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ulcer index | 9.5 ± 0.42 | 4.00 ± 0.36c | 7.16 ± 0.40b | 7.5 ± 0.56b | 1.50 ± 0.28c |
b P < 0.01, c P < 0.001.
Figure 2Histopathological slides of rat's stomachs subjected to aspirin induced gastric ulcers. Note: (a) negative control; (b) standard (misoprostol 100 μg/kg); (c) test-I (TDFME 125 mg/kg); (d) test-II (TDFME 250 mg/kg) and (e) test-III (TDFME 500 mg/kg).
Figure 3HPLC chromatogram of TDFME.
Results of the HPLC analysis of TDFME.
| Peak number | Retention time | Percentage area |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.80 | 3.95 |
| 2 | 5.75 | 0.98 |
| 3 | 6.45 | 2.06 |
| 4 | 6.73 | 0.69 |
| 5 | 7.70 | 7.15 |
| 6 | 8.42 | 0.20 |
| 7 | 8.87 | 0.47 |
| 8 | 10.46 | 6.13 |
| 9 | 11.06 | 1.83 |
| 10 | 12.07 | 1.77 |
| 11 | 13.50 | 0.36 |
| 12 | 15.77 | 6.03 |
| 13 | 16.13 | 1.09 |
| 14 | 17.47 | 19.91 |
| 15 | 18.07 | 7.68 |
| 16 | 18.31 | 4.07 |
| 17 | 19.22 | 0.22 |
| 18 | 19.68 | 0.68 |
| 19 | 20.28 | 2.22 |
| 20 | 20.88 | 6.56 |
| 21 | 21.21 | 0.32 |
| 22 | 21.67 | 3.19 |
| 23 | 22.53 | 2.17 |
| 24 | 23.34 | 2.01 |
| 25 | 23.78 | 2.14 |
| 26 | 24.87 | 0.18 |
| 27 | 27.02 | 0.28 |
| 28 | 27.33 | 0.18 |
| 29 | 28.05 | 4.56 |
| 30 | 28.68 | 0.19 |
| 31 | 29.38 | 0.20 |
| 32 | 30.33 | 0.32 |
| 33 | 31.15 | 0.34 |
| 34 | 31.81 | 0.24 |
| 35 | 32.20 | 0.55 |
| 36 | 33.04 | 0.79 |
| 37 | 33.46 | 5.80 |
| 38 | 35.42 | 1.55 |
| 39 | 35.89 | 0.25 |
| 40 | 38.61 | 0.69 |
Results of the GC-MS analysis of TDFME.
|
|
Figure 4GC-MS spectra of TDFME.
Mass spectral data of Crude TDFME.
|
|
Figure 5Electrospray ionization—high resolution mass spectra of crude TDFME.