| Literature DB >> 25561940 |
Abstract
This study was conducted to assessthe preventive effect of aqueous extract of Berberis integerrima Bge. root (AEBIR) on liver damage and oxidative stress induced by diabetes mellitus in rats. Forty male rats were divided into 5 groups as follows: 1- normal (N); 2- normal + barberry (N+B) (they received barberry root extract for 6 weeks); 3- diabetic (D) (they received Streptozotocin (STZ), 65 mg/Kg BW /i.p.); 4- diabetic +barberry before (D+Bb) (they received barberry root extract for 3 weeks before STZ injection and continued for another three weeks); and 5- diabetic + barberry after (D+Ba) (three days after STZ injection, they received barberry root extract for 3 weeks). The experimental groups received barberry root extract (500 mg/Kg bw) intra gastric by gavage for 6 weeks. The treatment of diabetic rats with AEBIR showed a significant decreases(p<0.001) in levels of blood glucose, malondialdehyde (MDA), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and total bilirubin while body weight, total protein, superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase(CAT) and reduced glutathione (GSH) increased (p<0.001) in comparison to diabetic control rats. Consumption of AEBIR in group D+Bb caused significant improvement in all these factors, compared to the group D+Ba. Also in this study, for the first time, we demonstrated that administration of AEBIR before diabetes induction resulted in enhanced amelioration of liver complications compared to the group receiving it after induction, indicating that AEBIR can play a preventive role in such patients.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; Berberis integrrima; Diabetes mellitus; Hepato protective; Rats
Year: 2015 PMID: 25561940 PMCID: PMC4277647
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Effect of AEBIR on the Blood glucose and body weight in normal and diabetic rats.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 1 |
| 10 ml/kg | 92.8±6.1 | 86.8±3.6 | 91.6±4.5 | 243.6±15.1 | 261±8.4 | 290.8±5.9& |
| 2 |
| 500 | 90.4±5.2 | 81.9±4. | 80.4±3.8 | 231.6±6.6 | 254±6.4 | 278.4±6.4& |
| 3 |
| 10 ml/kg | 80.8±5.4 | 291.8±8.9# | 305.5±10.1#& | 230.2±6.2 | 180±8.8#& | 150.4±6.75#& |
| 4 |
| 500 | 98.5±4.4 | 81.2±8.9* | 96.4±4.2* | 239.6±6.2 | 255±7.6* | 258.2±6.3* |
| 5 |
| 500 | 82.6±5.2 | 90.6±10.1* | 123.8±7.1* a& | 239.6±5.9 | 258±12.4* | 241.4±10.3* |
D+Bb : Diabetic rats treated + barberry_ before. D+Ba : Diabetic rats + Barberry_ After.;Nnormal;Ccontrol;B barberry: D diabetic; Values are presented as mean ± S.E.M..; n = 8 in each group. One way ANOVA followed by tukeytest;
p<0.001: Diabetic control rats were compared with Normal control Rats on corresponding day,
p<0.001 Diabetic treated Rats were compared with Diabetic control Rats,
p<0.01: Diabetic rats + Barberry_ After were compared with Diabetic rats treated + barberry_ before and
p<0.001 compared to 0 value.
Effect of AEBIR on the liver parameters (mg/dl) in normal and diabetic rats.
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 1 |
| 10 ml/kg | 99.08±6.17 | 52.62±3.08 | 39.86±4.97 | 1.59±0.13 | 7.51±0.41 |
| 2 |
| 500 | 91.42±2.17 | 50.18±5.01 | 35.18±5.09 | 1.30±0.11 | 7.53±0.44 |
| 3 |
| 10 ml/kg | 178.81±6.40# | 99.88±4.84# | 94.18±4.42# | 3.71±0.16# | 3.97±0.28# |
| 4 |
| 500 | 95.10±5.20c | 46.05±3.55c | 35.58±4.40c | 1.81±0.11c | 5.70±0.29a |
| 5 |
| 500 | 127.76±9.58c* | 66.91±3.91c* | 65.40±6.50b** | 2.74±0.19b** | 3.86±0.26* |
D+Bb : Diabetic rats treated + barberry_ before. D+Ba : Diabetic rats + Barberry_ After.;Nnormal;Ccontrol;B barberry: D diabetic; Values are presented as mean ± S.E.M..; n = 8 in each group. One way ANOVA followed by tukeytest;.
p<0.001 Diabetic control Rats were compared with Normal control Rats.
p<0.05 and
p<0.01,
p<0.001 Diabetic treated Rats were compared with Diabetic control Rats;
p<0.05 and
p<0.01 : Diabetic rats + Barberry_ After were compared with Diabetic rats treated + barberry_ before.
Effect of AEBIR on antioxidant parameters in normal and diabetic rats.
| Group | Treatment | Dose | MDA | SOD | CAT | GSH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | N+C | 10 mL/Kg | 2.15±0.22 | 10.04±0.68 | 82.39±5.05 | 5.46±0.33 |
| 2 | N+B | 500 | 2.22±0.10 | 10.87±1.14 | 92.44±4.85 | 5.93±0.40 |
| 3 | D+C | 10 mL/Kg | 7.43±0.59# | 3.06±0.40# | 32.64±3.31# | 2.14±0.16# |
| 4 | D+Bb | 500 | 2.23±0.32c | 9.74±0.46c | 86.59±5.57c | 7.28±0.43c |
| 5 | D+Ba | 50 | 4.48±0.45c** | 6.32±0.61a* | 57.63±8.45 a* | 4.69±0.63b** |
D+Bb : Diabetic rats treated + barberry_ before. D+Ba : Diabetic rats + Barberry_ After.;Nnormal;Ccontrol;B barberry: D diabetic; Values are presented as mean ± S.E.M..; n = 8 in each group. One way ANOVA followed by tukeytest;.
p<0.001 Diabetic control Rats were compared with Normal control Rats.
p<0.05 and
p<0.01,
p<0.001 Diabetic treated Rats were compared with Diabetic control Rats;
p<0.05 and
p<0.01 : Diabetic rats + Barberry_ After were compared with Diabetic rats treated + barberry_ before.
Figure 1Histopathologicalevalution of liver sections. Formalin fixed liver sections of 5 μ thickness fromcontrol and diabetic were stained with H&E and images were taken at the magnification of 400X. Various panelsrepresent control (A), treated control (B), diabetic control (C1, C2), diabetic treated rats [D+Bb group](D) and diabetic treated rats [D+Ba group] (E).Total loss of hepatic architecture (I) and lymphocytic inflammation (II).