| Literature DB >> 25287979 |
Md Golam Kabir, Md Monsor Rahman, Nazim Uddin Ahmed, Md Fakruddin, Saiful Islam, Reaz Mohammad Mazumdar.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was subjected to investigate different pharmacological properties of ethanol extract of Solena amplexicaulis root.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25287979 PMCID: PMC4193138 DOI: 10.1186/0717-6287-47-36
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biol Res ISSN: 0716-9760 Impact factor: 5.612
Result of phytochemical screening of ethanol root extract of
| Tests | SAET | Tests | SAET |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flavonoid | + | Carbohydrate | + |
| Tannin | - | Resin | + |
| Glycoside | + | Protein | + |
| Alkaloid | + | Saponins | + |
| Anthraruinone | - | Steroids | + |
(SAET denote for ethanolic extracts of Solena amplexicaulis root; (+) = present; (−) = Absent).
Figure 1DPPH radical scavenging activity of root extract.
anti-bacterial effect of ethanolic root-extract of
| Test organism | Source ID | Diameter of zone of inhibition (mm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (ATCC) | Ethanolic extract of the root from | Tetracycline 30 μg/disc | ||
| 2 mg/disc | 4 mg/disc | |||
| Gram positive | ||||
|
| 11774 | 7 | 10 | 21 |
|
| 25923 | 7.5 | 10 | 24 |
|
| 10876 | 7 | 10.5 | 12 |
|
| 842 | 8.5 | 11.0 | 21 |
|
| 13578 | 7 | 11.5 | 28 |
|
| 29212 | 6.5 | 9.5 | 19 |
| Gram negative | ||||
|
| 65154 | 11.5 | 16.5 | 22 |
|
| 12022 | 12.0 | 18.5 | 27 |
|
| 13883 | 10.5 | 14.5 | 15 |
|
| 8992 | 10 | 14.5 | 14 |
|
| 13315 | 11 | 15.5 | 17 |
|
| 25922 | 13.5 | 18 | 19 |
|
| 15748 | 12.5 | 22.5 | 26 |
|
| 25853 | 12 | 19.5 | 21 |
Antifungal effect of ethanolic extract of the root from
| Organism | Source | ID | % inhibition | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAET (3 mg) | SAET (5 mg) | Fluconazole (100 μg) | |||
|
| DSM | 63535 | 16 | 52 | 45 |
|
| DSM | 737 | 47.37 | 62.10 | 65 |
|
| DSM | 824 | 34.48 | 79.31 | 41 |
|
| DSM | 1075 | 23.58 | 45.6 | 48 |
|
| DSM | 2200 | 19.7 | 44.2 | 46 |
Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of SAET
| Test organism | Source ID (ATCC) | MIC value (μg/ml) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAET | Doxycycline hydrochloride | ||
| Gram positive | |||
|
| 11774 | 2500 | 5.0 |
|
| 25923 | 2000 | 5.5 |
|
| 10876 | 3000 | 4.5 |
|
| 842 | 1500 | 6.0 |
|
| 13578 | 2000 | 5.5 |
|
| 29212 | 2500 | 4.5 |
| Gram Negative | |||
|
| 65154 | 2000 | 5.5 |
|
| 12022 | 1500 | 6.0 |
|
| 13883 | 2000 | 6.5 |
|
| 8992 | 1500 | 5.5 |
|
| 13315 | 2500 | 4.5 |
|
| 25922 | 1500 | 5.0 |
|
| 15748 | 2500 | 5.0 |
|
| 25853 | 2000 | 4.5 |
| Fungi | Fluconazole (100 μg) | ||
|
| DSM 63535 | 2500 | 7.5 |
|
| DSM 737 | 3000 | 7.0 |
|
| DSM 824 | 2500 | 8.0 |
|
| DSM 1075 | 3000 | 6.5 |
|
| DSM 2200 | 2500 | 6.0 |
Figure 2Cytotoxicity of root ethanol extract (SAET).
Calculation of LD value, regression equation and confidence limit by probit analysis
| log 10 LD 50 | LD 50 (mg/kg) | 95% confidence limit (mg/kg) | Regression equation | Chi-square value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calculated | Tabulated | ||||
| 1.91 | 81.54 | 59.13-101.98 | Y = − 7.129 + 6.363*X | 8.24 | 9.49 |
Here, Y and X indicate probit and Log10 (Dose) respectively , * mean multiplication.
Figure 3Acute toxicity of SAET.
acetic acid induced writhing response of the plant root extract in mice
| Writhing count/20 minutes | Control | Diclofenac sodium |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (40 mg/kg) | 35 mg/kg bodyweight | 25 mg/kg bodyweight | 15 mg/kg bodyweight | ||
| 82 ± 1.52 | 39.5 ± 1.34** | 60.5 ± 1.48** | 70 ± 1.21** | 79.5 ± 1.02** | |
**p < 0.001, Here, All the value are expressed as Mean ± SEM.
Figure 4Effect of ethanolic root-extract of on acetic acid induced writhing response mice model.
Anti-inflammatory activity of SAET
| Groups | Dose of extract (mg/kg) p.o. | Change in paw thickness (mm) ± SD (% inhibition) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 hour | 2 hour | 3 hour | 4 hour | ||
| Carrageenan control | 1.34 ± 0.1 | 2.3 ± 0.118 | 3.64 ± 0.147 | 3.23 ± 0.161 | |
| (.01 ml of 1% w/v) | |||||
| Carrageenan | 200 | 1.14 ± 0.103 (14.93%) | 1.74 ± 0.217 (26.44%)a | 2.50 ± 0.106 (31.3%)a | 1.97 ± 0.115 (39.0%)a |
| (0.1 ml of 1% w/v) + aqueous extract | |||||
| Carrageenan | 400 | 1.00 ± 0.12 (25.6%) | 1.54 ± 0.163 (35.02%)a | 1.81 ± 0.009 (50.09%)a | 1.41 ± 0.188 (56.34%)a |
| (0.1 ml of 1% w/v) + aqueous extract | |||||
| Carrageenan | 10 | 0.59 ± 0.118 (55.97%)a | 0.8 ± 0.121 (66.24%)a | 1.14 ± 0.121 (68.82%)a | 0.9 ± 0.118 (72.13%)a |
| (0.1 ml of 1% w/v) + diclofenac sodium | |||||
All values are expressed as mean ± SD; P < 0.05.
Figure 5Antinociceptive activity of SAET.
Figure 6Reducing power of SAET.
Figure 7Clot lysis by Streptokinae, , in combination with Streptokinase and water.
Figure 8Lipid peroxidation inhibition of SAET.
Ferrous iron chelating assay of ethanolic root extract of and the standard, EDTA
| SL | Sample concentration (μg/ml) | % inhibition | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard EDTA | SAET | ||
| 1 | 1000 | 53.62 ± 0.25 | 29.35 ± 0.65* |
| 2 | 2000 | 68.45 ± 0.35 | 32.71 ± 0.46* |
| 3 | 3000 | 79.85 ± 0.13 | 35.15 ± 0.39* |
| 4 | 4000 | 89.48 ± 0.23 | 38.23 ± 0.31* |
| 5 | 5000 | 94.67 ± 0.18 | 41.65 ± 0.44* |
Values are expressed as mean ± SD, *significantly different (P < 0.05).
Protective activity of SAET against oxidative stress
| Treatment | % survival a |
|---|---|
| Untreated cells (control) | 100 ± 1.52 |
| 4 mM H202 | 26.80 ± 0.58 b |
| H202 + 200 μg/mL extract | 39.17 ± 2.08 c |
| H202 + 400 μg/mL extract | 65.98 ± 1.15 c |
| H202 + 800 μg/mL extract | 88.66 ± 0.58 c |
Average ± SD. Significantly different from the untreated cells (control) by the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Dunnett’s t-test (p ≤ 0.05). Significantly different from the stressing agents by the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Dunnett’s t-test (p ≤ 0.05).