| Literature DB >> 26482072 |
Yarasi Gayathri Ramakrishna1, Kumarasamy Savithri2, Manfred Kist3, Sivasitamparam Niranjali Devaraj4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bael (Aegle marmelos (L.) Corr.) has been widely used in indigenous systems of Indian medicine to exploit its medicinal properties including astringent, antidiarrheal, antidysenteric, demulcent, antipyretic, antiulcer, anti-inflammatory and anti cancer activities. The present study aims to evaluate the antioxidative and antiulcer effect of methanolic extract of unripe fruit of Aegle marmelos (MEAM) against Helicobacter pylori-Lipopolysaccharide (HP-LPS) induced gastric ulcer in Sprague Dawley (SD) rats.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26482072 PMCID: PMC4615325 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-015-0915-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 1Dose determination of HP-LPS for the induction of gastric lesions in SD rats. Data are expressed as Mean ± SD for six animals in each group. Statistical significance: *p < 0.001, all groups vs control
Fig. 2Effective dose determination of Methanolic extract of Aegle marmelos (MEAM) in HP-LPS induced animals. Data are expressed as Mean ± SD for six animals in each group. Statistical significance: *p < 0.001; #p <0.05; NS, not significant. a: all groups vs HP-LPS induced; b: all groups vs rats treated with sucralfate
Effect of MEAM on the levels of acid secretory parameters in gastric juice of experimental rats
| Groups | Volume of Gastric Juice | pH | Free acidity | Total acidity | Acid Output | Pepsin concentration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 1.45 ± 0.10 | 4.6 ± 0.28 | 32.69 ± 1.93 | 58.73 ± 3.95 | 85.16 ± 5.74 | 155.13 ± 10.24 |
| II | 3.27 ± 0.27a* | 1.92 ± 0.14a* | 60.17 ± 4.39a* | 91.82 ± 5.22a* | 300.25 ± 21.03a* | 262.91 ± 17.85a* |
| III | 1.65 ± 0.12b* | 4.45 ± 0.35b* | 33.26 ± 2.28b* | 59.97 ± 3.47b* | 98.95 ± 7.27b* | 174.36 ± 13.03b* |
| IV | 1.7 ± 0.11b* | 4.2 ± 0.27b* | 33.9 ± 2.26b* | 60.66 ± 4.15b* | 103.12 ± 7.59b* | 180.88 ± 8.87b* |
| V | 1.4 ± 0.10c NS | 4.7 ± 0.34c NS | 32.41 ± 2.22c NS | 58.11 ± 4.65c NS | 81.35 ± 5.45c NS | 155.18 ± 10.20c NS |
Data are expressed as Mean ± S.D. for six animals in each group. Units: volume of gastric juice (ml 100 g−1 4 h−1); free acidity (mEq L−1100 g−1); total acidity (mEq−1 L 100 g−1); acid output (mEq 100 g−1 4 h−1); pepsin activity (μmol tyrosine liberated mL−1). Statistical significance: *p < 0.05; NS, not significant. a: Group II compared with Group I. b: Groups III and IV compared with Group II. c: Group V compared with Group I
Effect of MEAM on the activities of enzymatic antioxidants in experimental animals
| Groups | SOD | CAT | GPx | GR | GST |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 4.43 ± 0.26 | 17.63 ± 0.91 | 206.28 ± 14.49 | 2.64 ± 0.16 | 4.82 ± 0.24 |
| II | 2.51 ± 0.18a* | 9.06 ± 0.61a* | 138.28 ± 37.39a* | 1.39 ± 0.11a* | 3.02 ± 0.19a* |
| III | 4.39 ± 0.30b* | 17.32 ± 1.15b* | 205.74 ± 15.07b* | 2.51 ± 0.15b* | 4.8 ± 0.38b* |
| IV | 4.41 ± 0.28b* | 17.47 ± 1.24b* | 204.93 ± 13.40b* | 2.62 ± 0.18b* | 4.79 ± 0.26b* |
| V | 4.42 ± 0.20c NS | 17.58 ± 1.12c NS | 205.62 ± 12.67c NS | 2.63 ± 0.22c NS | 4.81 ± 0.35c NS |
Data are expressed as Mean ± SD for six animals in each group. Units: SOD, Units/mg protein (one unit of the SOD activity is the amount of enzyme required to give 50 % inhibition of epinephrine auto oxidation); CAT, μmol of H2O2 consumed/min/mg protein; GSH, nmol/g tissue; GPx, nmol GSH oxidized/min/mg protein; GR, μmol NADPH oxidized/min/mg protein; GST, μmol of 1-chloro-2,4 dinitrobenzene conjugate formed/min/mg protein. Statistical significance: *p < 0.05; NS, not significant. a: Group II (HP-LPS induced) compared with Group I (Control). b: Groups III (MEAM treated)and IV (Sucralfate treated) compared with Group II (HP-LPS induced). c: Group V (Drug control) compared with Group I (Control)
Effect of MEAM on the activities of non-enzymatic antioxidants in experimental animals
| Groups | GSH | Vit C | Vit E |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | 3.92 ± 0.23 | 7.52 ± 0.33 | 5.85 ± 0.32 |
| II | 1.46 ± 0.10a* | 4.64 ± 0.36a* | 3.08 ± 0.21a* |
| III | 3.89 ± 0.25b* | 7.48 ± 0.55b* | 5.8 ± 0.44b* |
| IV | 3.8 ± 0.25b* | 7.45 ± 0.46b* | 5.75 ± 0.37b* |
| V | 3.88 ± 0.33c NS | 7.5 ± 0.54c NS | 5.79 ± 0.34c NS |
Data are expressed as Mean ± S.D. for six animals in each group. Units: GSH, μg/mg protein; Vitamin E, μg/mg protein; Vitamin C, μg/mg protein. Statistical significance: *p < 0.05; NS, not significant. a: Group II (HP-LPS induced) compared with Group I (Control). b: Groups III (MEAM treated)and IV (Sucralfate treated) compared with Group II (HP-LPS induced). c: Group V (Drug control) compared with Group I (Control)
Fig. 3Effect of MEAM on Lipid Peroxidation in Gastric tissue of Experimental Animals. Data are expressed as Mean ± SD for six animals in each group. Units: LPO, nmol of MDA released/mg protein. Statistical significance: *p < 0.05; NS, not significant. a: Group II (HP-LPS induced) compared with Group I (Control). b: Groups III (MEAM treated)and IV (Sucralfate treated) compared with Group II (HP-LPS induced). c: Group V (Drug control) compared with Group I (Control)
Fig. 4Histological analysis of gastric mucosa of control and experimental animals. Sections stained with Hematoxylin and Eosin were visualized under light microscope. a Control gastric mucosa shows normal architecture of epithelial lining b Gastric mucosa of rats induced with HP-LPS shows marked inflammation, neutrophil infiltration and mucosal ulceration with sub-mucosal edema c Gastric mucosa of MEAM treated rats shows no ulcers, mucosal regeneration with mild inflammatory cells, and mild edema. d Gastric mucosa of rats treated with Sucralfate also shows similar architecture as that of MEAM e Gastric mucosa of rats treated with MEAM alone shows normal gastric epithelial lining similar to that of control. Magnification: 5 X