| Literature DB >> 27313954 |
Ghanshyam Panigrahi1, Chhayakanta Panda1, Arjun Patra2.
Abstract
Background. Sesbania grandiflora has been traditionally used as antidiabetic, antioxidant, antipyretic, and expectorant and in the management of various ailments. Materials and Methods. The study evaluates the antidiabetic activity of methanolic extract of Sesbania grandiflora (MESG) in type 2 diabetic rats induced by low dose streptozotocine and high fat diet. Diabetic rats were given vehicle, MESG (200 and 400 mg/kg, p.o.), and the standard drug, metformin (10 mg/kg), for 28 days. During the experimental period, body weight, abdominal girth, food intake, fasting serum glucose, urine analyses were measured. Insulin tolerance test was carried out on 25th day of drug treatment period. Serum analyses for lipid profile and SGOT and SGPT and serums creatinine, urea, protein, SOD, and MDA were also carried out. At the end of the experiment, animals were euthanized, the liver and pancreas were immediately dissected out, and the ratio of pancreas to body weight and hepatic glycogen were calculated. Results. MESG (200 and 400 mg/kg, p.o.) induced significant reduction (P < 0.05) of raised blood glucose levels in diabetic rats and also restored other parameters to normal level. Conclusion. Therefore, it is concluded that MESG has potential antihyperglycemic and antihyperlipemic activities and alleviate insulin resistance conditions.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27313954 PMCID: PMC4893447 DOI: 10.1155/2016/4083568
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scientifica (Cairo) ISSN: 2090-908X
Effect of MESG on body weight, abdominal girth, and food intake during different days of diet manipulating period and drug treatment period.
| Treatment group | Parameters | Different days of diet manipulating period | Different days of drug treatment period | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 14 | 28 | 0 | 14 | 28 | ||
| Group I | Body weight (gm) | 151.67 ± 3.00 | 160.83 ± 2.39 | 172.50 ± 3.35 | 178.33 ± 2.47 | 187.50 ± 2.14 | 196.67 ± 3.33 |
| Abdominal girth (cm) | 13.82 ± 0.15 | 14.28 ± 0.10 | 14.73 ± 0.20 | 14.95 ± 0.21 | 15.35 ± 0.19 | 15.73 ± 0.15 | |
| Food intake (gm) | 15.63 ± 0.47 | 15.98 ± 0.62 | 16.45 ± 0.58 | 16.85 ± 0.88 | 17.02 ± 0.95 | 17.18 ± 0.92 | |
|
| |||||||
| Group II | Body weight (gm) | 153.33 ± 3.07 | 182.50 ± 3.10a | 221.67 ± 3.57a | 239.17 ± 3.96a | 224.17 ± 3.00a | 211.67 ± 2.47a |
| Abdominal girth (cm) | 13.52 ± 0.23 | 15.62 ± 0.32c | 17.32 ± 0.19b | 18.17 ± 0.15a | 18.38 ± 0.19a | 18.37 ± 0.19a | |
| Food intake (gm) | 17.03 ± 0.80 | 14.18 ± 0.62 | 13.52 ± 1.05a | 14.43 ± 0.60a | 18.62 ± 0.65c | 20.23 ± 0.63b | |
|
| |||||||
| Group III | Body weight (gm) | 157.50 ± 3.82 | 186.67 ± 3.33 | 225.83 ± 3.33 | 243.33 ± 3.57 | 235.83 ± 2.39 | 231.67 ± 3.33 |
| Abdominal girth (cm) | 12.82 ± 0.36 | 14.98 ± 0.29 | 16.65 ± 0.22 | 17.57 ± 0.20 | 17.08 ± 0.19 | 16.52 ± 0.25 | |
| Food intake (gm) | 16.70 ± 0.87 | 14.03 ± 0.80 | 13.48 ± 0.92 | 14.27 ± 0.77 | 16.90 ± 0.80 | 17.18 ± 0.98 | |
|
| |||||||
| Group IV | Body weight (gm) | 150.83 ± 3.07 | 181.67 ± 2.47# | 216.67 ± 2.47# | 235.83 ± 2.39# | 226.17 ± 3.00# | 230.83 ± 2.39 |
| Abdominal girth (cm) | 13.10 ± 0.16 | 15.32 ± 0.12 | 17.02 ± 0.12 | 17.93 ± 0.18 | 17.58 ± 0.19 | 17.22 ± 0.18 | |
| Food intake (gm) | 16.13 ± 0.73 | 14.48 ± 0.75 | 12.98 ± 1.08 | 14.98 ± 1.25 | 17.05 ± 0.82 | 17.95 ± 0.98 | |
|
| |||||||
| Group V | Body weight (gm) | 154.17 ± 2.39 | 187.50 ± 2.81# | 223.33 ± 3.07# | 244.17 ± 2.39# | 236.67 ± 2.47 | 241.67 ± 2.47 |
| Abdominal girth (cm) | 13.93 ± 0.41 | 15.77 ± 0.15 | 17.55 ± 0.20 | 18.43 ± 0.17 | 17.95 ± 0.19 | 17.50 ± 0.19 | |
| Food intake (gm) | 15.78 ± 0.38 | 13.45 ± 0.62 | 12.40 ± 0.53 | 13.78 ± 0.65 | 16.28 ± 1.12 | 17.43 ± 0.70 | |
The results were expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6.
a P < 0.001, b P < 0.01, and c P < 0.05, diabetic control versus normal control.
P < 0.001, P < 0.01, and P < 0.05, metformin treated and MESG treated groups versus diabetic control group.
“#” indicates that there is no significant difference between metformin treated and MESG treated groups at P < 0.05.
Effect of MESG on blood glucose level and urine analysis during different days of drug treatment period.
| Parameters | Different days | Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | Group V |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood glucose | 0 | 84.67 ± 3.52 | 239.17 ± 6.11a | 237.50 ± 5.21 | 244.17 ± 6.64# | 243.33 ± 4.91# |
| 14 | 81.83 ± 2.95 | 223.33 ± 5.12a | 162.83 ± 5.21 | 201.17 ± 4.53 | 182.67 ± 4.38 | |
| 28 | 83.33 ± 3.15 | 217.67 ± 5.47a | 124.33 ± 4.81 | 166.50 ± 4.32 | 145.17 ± 4.51 | |
|
| ||||||
| Urine volume (mL) | 0 | 5.48 ± 0.25 | 8.32 ± 0.18a | 8.23 ± 0.22 | 7.68 ± 0.20# | 7.82 ± 0.19# |
| 14 | 5.57 ± 0.22 | 8.17 ± 0.20a | 6.02 ± 0.26 | 6.67 ± 0.25 | 6.42 ± 0.25 | |
| 28 | 5.28 ± 0.24 | 8.47 ± 0.21a | 5.47 ± 0.27 | 6.05 ± 0.26 | 5.38 ± 0.29 | |
|
| ||||||
| Presence of glucose in urine | 0 | − | + | + | + | + |
| 14 | − | + | − | − | − | |
| 28 | − | + | − | − | − | |
|
| ||||||
| Presence of ketone bodies in urine | 0 | − | − | − | − | − |
| 14 | − | − | − | − | − | |
| 28 | − | + | − | − | − | |
The results were expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6.
a P < 0.001; diabetic control versus normal control.
P < 0.001, P < 0.01, and P < 0.05, metformin treated and MESG treated groups versus diabetic control group.
“#” indicates that there is no significant difference between metformin treated and MESG treated groups at P < 0.05.
“+” indicates being present and “−” indicates being absent.
K-values (mg/dL/min) of different groups.
| Treatment groups | Linear regression equation for the slope |
|
|---|---|---|
| Group I (normal control) |
| 5.337 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Group II (diabetic control) |
| 3.212 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Group III (metformin treated) |
| 4.962 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Group IV (MESG treated, 200 mg/kg) |
| 3.862 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Group V (MESG treated, 400 mg/kg) |
| 4.108 |
|
| ||
Figure 1Blood glucose disappearance slope.
Effect of MESG on serum parameters during end of the drug treatment period.
| Serum parameters | Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | Group V |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total cholesterol | 59.33 ± 4.03 | 166.50 ± 5.01a | 82.67 ± 4.57 | 122.17 ± 5.53 | 102.17 ± 4.83 |
| Triglycerides | 53.83 ± 3.93 | 147.67 ± 5.16a | 71.50 ± 3.55 | 114.83 ± 3.10 | 88.83 ± 3.74 |
| HDL | 29.17 ± 1.66 | 16.50 ± 1.63a | 27.67 ± 2.11 | 22.17 ± 1.85 | 24.33 ± 2.20 |
| LDL | 19.40 ± 4.07 | 120.47 ± 7.02a | 40.70 ± 4.91 | 77.03 ± 6.29 | 60.07 ± 4.33 |
| VLDL | 10.77 ± 0.79 | 29.53 ± 1.03a | 14.30 ± 0.71 | 22.97 ± 0.62 | 17.77 ± 0.75 |
| SGOT (U/L) | 41.17 ± 1.30 | 72.33 ± 2.51a | 52.17 ± 1.87 | 62.33 ± 2.17 | 57.83 ± 2.61 |
| SGPT (U/L) | 38.83 ± 2.65 | 89.17 ± 2.69a | 47.33 ± 2.94 | 68.17 ± 3.71 | 54.83 ± 3.21 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.54 ± 0.06 | 1.50 ± 0.07a | 0.68 ± 0.05 | 1.13 ± 0.08 | 0.87 ± 0.07 |
| Serum urea (mg/dL) | 33.17 ± 2.09 | 70.33 ± 3.39a | 38.83 ± 3.10 | 57.17 ± 3.56 | 49.83 ± 3.74 |
| Serum protein (gm/dL) | 6.72 ± 0.32 | 3.47 ± 0.30a | 6.35 ± 0.37 | 5.05 ± 0.37 | 5.90 ± 0.33 |
| Serum SOD (U/mL) | 31.73 ± 1.18 | 19.92 ± 1.26a | 28.83 ± 1.10 | 25.78 ± 1.24 | 27.17 ± 1.31 |
| Serum MDA (nmole/mL) | 6.23 ± 0.62 | 14.28 ± 1.04a | 7.67 ± 0.85 | 10.78 ± 0.70 | 8.85 ± 0.76 |
The results were expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6.
a P < 0.001; diabetic control versus normal control.
P < 0.001, P < 0.01, and P < 0.05, metformin treated and MESG treated groups versus diabetic control group.
“#” indicates that there is no significant difference between metformin treated and MESG treated groups at P < 0.05.
Pancreas-to-body weight ratio and hepatic glycogen content of different treatment groups.
| Treatment group | Pancreas-to-body weight ratio (%) | Hepatic glycogen (mg/gm) |
|---|---|---|
| Group I | 0.27 ± 0.02 | 14.61 ± 0.79 |
|
| ||
| Group II | 0.14 ± 0.04a | 6.03 ± 0.72a |
|
| ||
| Group III | 0.25 ± 0.03 | 12.38 ± 0.73 |
|
| ||
| Group IV | 0.19 ± 0.01# | 9.98 ± 0.72 |
|
| ||
| Group V | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 11.45 ± 0.87 |
The results were expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6.
a P < 0.001; diabetic control versus normal control.
P < 0.001, P < 0.01, and P < 0.05, metformin treated and MESG treated groups versus diabetic control group.
“#” indicates that there is no significant difference between metformin treated and MESG treated groups at P < 0.05.