| Literature DB >> 26351508 |
Sara Tasnim1, Parsa Sanjana Haque1, Md Sazzadul Bari1, Md Monir Hossain2, Sardar Mohd Ashraful Islam3, Mohammad Shahriar3, Mohiuddin Ahmed Bhuiyan3, Muhammad Shahdaat Bin Sayeed4.
Abstract
Studies have shown that Allium sativum L. (AS) protects amyloid-beta peptide-induced apoptosis, prevents oxidative insults to neurons and synapses, and thus prevent Alzheimer's disease progression in experimental animals. However, there is no experimental evidence in human regarding its putative role in memory and cognition. We have studied the effect of AS consumption by healthy human volunteers on visual memory, verbal memory, attention, and executive function in comparison to control subjects taking placebo. The study was conducted over five weeks and twenty volunteers of both genders were recruited and divided randomly into two groups: A (AS) and B (placebo). Both groups participated in the 6 computerized neuropsychological tests of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) twice: at the beginning and after five weeks of the study. We found statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in several parameters of visual memory and attention due to AS ingestion. We also found statistically nonsignificant (p > 0.05) beneficial effects on verbal memory and executive function within a short period of time among the volunteers. Study for a longer period of time with patients suffering from neurodegenerative diseases might yield more relevant results regarding the potential therapeutic role of AS.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26351508 PMCID: PMC4550798 DOI: 10.1155/2015/103416
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1CONSORT 2010 flow diagram for the study design.
Memory tests.
| Neuropsychological tests | Group A ( | Group B ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | After 5 weeks | Baseline | After 5 weeks | |||
| Visual Memory Test | Paired Associative Learning (PAL) | PAL total errors (adjusted) | 31 (22.65) | 13.22 (8.23) | 15.1 (9.78) | 13.7 (10.4) |
| PAL mean errors to success | 6.2 (4.53) | 2.64 (1.65) | 3.02 (1.96) | 2.74 (2.08) | ||
| PAL mean trials to success | 2.69 (0.81) | 1.86 (0.51) | 2.08 (0.6) | 1.82 (0.37) | ||
| PAL total errors (8 shapes, adjusted) | 4.78 (5.43) | 0.78 (1.3) | 1.6 (2.5) | 1.6 (2.99) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Verbal Memory Test | Verbal Recognition Memory (VRM) | VRM free recall—total correct (immediate) | 11.11 (3.3) | 12.89 (1.45) | 11.2 (2.86) | 12.7 (1.77) |
| VRM free recall—total novel words (immediate) | 0.11 (0.33) | 0.44 (0.88) | 0.6 (0.97) | 0.4 (0.97) | ||
| VRM recognition—total correct (immediate) | 34.67 (0.71) | 35.22 (0.67) | 34.4 (1.96) | 35 (1.7) | ||
| VRM recognition—total false positives (immediate) | 0.33 (0.5) | 0.22 (0.44) | 0.3 (0.67) | 0.4 (0.97) | ||
| VRM recognition—total correct (delayed) | 34.44 (1.59) | 34.78 (1.92) | 34.1 (1.85) | 33.4 (5.89) | ||
The values are expressed as “mean (SD)” and ∗ indicates that variation is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Attention test.
| Neuropsychological tests | Group A ( | Group B ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | After 5 weeks | Baseline | After 5 weeks | |||
| Attention Test | Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP) | RVP A′ | 0.91 (0.04) | 0.94 (0.04) | 0.93 (0.05) | 0.94 (0.03) |
| RVP B′′ | 0. 95 (0.39) | 0.95 (0.07) | 0.95 (0.05) | 0.95 (0.07) | ||
| RVP total hits | 17.78 (3.87) | 20.78 (4.44) | 19.5 (5.49) | 20.8 (3.55) | ||
The values are expressed as “mean (SD)” and ∗ indicates that variation is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Executive function tests.
| Neuropsychological Tests | Group A ( | Group B ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | After 5 weeks | Baseline | After 5 weeks | |||
| Executive function tests | Intra-Extra Dimensional Shift (IED) | IED total trials (adjusted) | 102.56 (46.41) | 83.44 (53.74) | 83.9 (29.43) | 86.4 (30.77) |
| IED total errors (adjusted) | 26.67 (24.01) | 34 (40.27) | 18.3 (15.33) | 18.3 (16.69) | ||
| IED stages completed | 8.56 (0.89) | 10.67 (6.96) | 8.8 (0.63) | 8.8 (0.63) | ||
| One Touch Stockings of Cambridge (OTS) | OTS problems solved on first choice | 16.44 (2.74) | 17.67 (1.94) | 18 (1.41) | 17.1 (3.67) | |
| OTS mean choices to correct (5 moves) | 1.56 (0.66) | 1.33 (0.25) | 1.3 (0.3) | 1.55 (0.98) | ||
| OTS mean latency to first choice | 9411.36 (2732.18) | 10288 (5455.87) | 9126.665 (3188.54) | 8361.15 (4089.61) | ||
| OTS mean latency to first choice (5 moves) | 16032 (4007.63) | 19483 (11173.4) | 19847 (9504.19) | 18191 (12756) | ||
| OTS mean latency to correct (5 moves) | 23456 (12300.8) | 25025 (30267.8) | 21598 (9305.57) | 19581 (12484.8) | ||
| Spatial Working Memory (SWM) | SWM between errors | 31.44 (16.55) | 30.22 (24.42) | 38.9 (24.17) | 33.2 (24.26) | |
| SWM strategy | 27.11 (4.86) | 25.56 (6.88) | 31.7 (8.33) | 29.5 (6.55) | ||
The values are expressed as “mean (SD)” and none of the parameters were statistically significant in the executive function tests.