| Literature DB >> 25386398 |
Chawda Hiren Manubhai1, Mandavia Divyesh Rasiklal1, Baxi Seema Natvarlal2, Vadgama Vishalkumar Kishorbhai1, Tripathi Chandrabhanu Rajkishor1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cow urine ark (CUA), known as "Amrita" as mentioned in Ayurveda, contains anti-hyperglycemic and antioxidant effects. Therefore, we designed the present study to evaluate the lipid lowering activity of CUA and its possible implication in metabolic syndrome.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidantactivity; Cowurineark; Dyslipidemia; Guineapig; Hypolipidemia; Statin
Year: 2014 PMID: 25386398 PMCID: PMC4224713
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Avicenna J Phytomed ISSN: 2228-7930
Effect of each treatment strategy on serum lipid profile in guinea pigs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Base line | 46.33 ± 4.04 | 92 ± 5.24 | 4.5 ± 0.9 | 23.56 ± 2.6 | 19.2 ± 1.16 | 11.4 ± 0.8 |
| 60 Days | 46.53 ± 5.02 | 88.7 ± 6.65 | 4.4 ± 0.5 | 24.17 ± 2.13 | 18.7 ± 1.22 | 12.02 ± 0.6 | |
|
| Base line | 46.2 ± 7.03 | 87.38 ± 6.2 | 4.1 ± 0.8 | 23.26 ± 3.47 | 17.3 ± 1.24 | 9.78 ± 1.5 |
| 60 Days | 82.6 ± 4.65 | 109.2 ± 7.63 | 3.9 ± 0.8 | 54.38 ± 7.1 | 22.5 ± 3.5 | 15.39 ± 7.48 | |
|
| Base line | 47.8 ± 3.43 | 75 ± 9.25 | 4.5 ± 0.6 | 28.33 ± 2.7 | 15 ± 1.85 | 12.53 ± 3.19 |
| 60 Days | 64.9 ± 7.92 | 49.5 ± 2.65 | 7.16 ± 1.6 | 47.6 ± 6.4 | 9.9 ± 0.5 | 10.44 ± 1.86 | |
|
| Base line | 46.23 ± 2.24 | 75.3 ± 6.01 | 4.3 ± 0.42 | 26.83 ± 4.26 | 15.06 ± 1.2 | 11.2 ± 1.45 |
| 60 Days | 57.53 ± 2.9 | 45.3 ± 3.21 | 6.3 ± 0.6 | 42.1 ± 1.9 | 9.06 ± 0.64 | 9.29 ± 0.52 | |
|
| Base line | 42.09 ± 8.64 | 86.83 ± 2.14 | 5.8 ± 0.7 | 26 ± 2.57 | 15.57 ± 2.3 | 8.8 ± 0.6 |
| 60 Days | 46.32 ± 5.21 | 76.42 ± 4.6 | 9.6 ± 0.9 | 28 ± 5.15 | 15.08 ± 2.3 | 4.55 ± 0.65 |
Values are expressed as Mean ± standard error of mean; LDL: low density lipoprotein, VLDL: very low density lipoprotein, HDL: high density lipoprotein; CUA: Cow urine ark;
p< 0.05 as compared to sham control, ANOVA followed by Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparison test;
p< 0.05 as compared to baseline level, paired t-test.
The effects of each treatment strategy on serum lipid profile (% increment) on guinea pigsat the end of 60 days treatment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| - 2.4 ± 1.8 | - 2.4 ± 1.8 | - 2.4 ± 2.4 | - 2.8 ± 3.8 | - 2.3 ± 1.8 | 0.3 ± 3.4 |
|
|
| 92 ± 22.8 | 29.8 ± 7.5 | 63.2 ± 45.4 | 161.93 ± 45.5 | 29.8 ± 7.5 | 54.2 ± 30.7 |
|
|
| 42.9 ± 25.3 | - 26. 5 ± 12.7 | 70.8 ± 36 | 78.9 ± 34.9 | - 26.5 ± 12.7 | 5.9 ± 30 |
|
|
| 27.2 ± 8.5 | - 37.1 ± 8.2 | 50.5 ± 16 | 72 ± 21.7 | - 37.1 ± 8.2 | - 8.85 ± 13.2 |
|
|
| 4.5 ± 4.9 | - 8.82 ± 2.3 | 234 ± 31 | - 18.9 ± 3.9 | - 8.8 ± 2.3 | - 67.9 ± 2.1 |
Values are expressed as Mean ± standard error of mean; LDL: low density lipoprotein, VLDL: very low density lipoprotein, HDL: high density lipoprotein; CUA: Cow urine ark;
p< 0.05 as compared to vehicle control, ANOVA followed by Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparison test;
p< 0.05 as compared to sham control, ANOVA followed by Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparison test;
p< 0.001 as compared to sham control, ANOVA followed by Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparison test;
p< 0.05 as compared to rosuvastatin treatment group, ANOVA followed by Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparison test.
Effect of each treatment strategy on serum enzymes in guinea pigs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 53.46 ± 1.86 | 61.33 ± 7.95 | 94.8 ± 12.67 | 372.83 ± 44.03 | 268.8 ± 11.5 |
|
| 55.81 ± 2.86 | 63.33 ± 7.6 | 97.5 ± 9.5 | 377.16 ± 46.12 | 267.7 ± 17.6 | |
|
|
| 61.17 ± 6.21 | 50.33 ± 5.3 | 85.83 ± 11.7 | 311.5 ± 39.05 | 285 ± 34.74 |
|
| 104 ± 12.72 | 162.4 ± 25.4 | 145.6 ± 9.6** | 456.5 ± 56.8** | 360.23 ± 27.1** | |
|
|
| 57.14 ± 4.3 | 63.76 ± 14.9 | 126.5 ± 18.8 | 345.3 ± 22.6 | 433.56 ± 22.1 |
|
| 50.83 ± 9.9 | 72.66 ± 22.1 | 139.9 ± 9.07 | 194.16 ± 28.12* | 353.8 ± 36.5 | |
|
|
| 51 ± 1.3 | 73 ± 14.7 | 86.6 ± 15 | 283.6 ± 27.2 | 317.33 ± 22.5 |
|
| 63.8 ± 6.5 | 96.8 ± 14.6 | 124.3 ± 12.73 | 243.5 ± 37.4* | 297.6 ± 17.5 | |
|
|
| 63.26 ± 13.2 | 62.26 ± 9.65 | 103.6 ± 12.3 | 241 ± 46.64 | 374.5 ± 42.25 |
|
| 64.34 ± 5.5 | 169 ± 12.68 | 161.5 ± 10.91** | 301.8 ± 31.12 | 392.19 ± 28.3 |
Values are expressed as Mean ± standard error of mean; ALT: Alanine aminotransferase, AST: Aspartate aminotransferase,AP: Akaline phosphatase , LDH: Lactate dehyrogenase, CK-MB: Creatine kinase-MB, CUA: Cow urine ark;
p<0.05 as compared to sham control, ANOVA followed by Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparison test;
p< 0.05 as compared to baseline level, paired t-test.
Figure 1Histological photograph of liver of guinea pig (H&E 40x). (A) C, H and S indicates
Figure 2Histological photograph of kidney of guinea pig (H&E 40x). (A) G, T and I indicate normal structure of glomeruli, tubule and interstitum, respectively; (B) No fatty changes were seen in high fat diet fed guinea pig; (C) and (D) indicate normal histological appearance of kidney in CUA (1.6 ml/kg) and rosuvastatin (1.5 mg/kg) treated groups, respectively
Effect of each treatment strategy on weight of guinea pigs
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
|
| 540.66 ± 6.14 | 554.16 ± 15.97 |
|
| 632.33 ± 44.3 | 667.82 ± 45.32 |
|
| 602.3 ± 29.3 | 637.6 ± 17.8 |
|
| 604.3 ± 9.2 | 630.1 ±4.6 |
|
| 658 ± 36.8 | 682.5 ± 22.02 |
Values are expressed as Mean ± standard error of mean; CUA: Cow urine ark;
p< 0.05 as compared to baseline value, paired -test.