| Literature DB >> 27843476 |
Gabriela Diniz Pinto Coelho1, Vanessa Soares Martins1, Laura Vieira do Amaral1, Rômulo Dias Novaes2, Mariáurea Matias Sarandy3, Reggiani Vilela Gonçalves4.
Abstract
Type II diabetes mellitus is one of the most common public health problems worldwide. Its increasing prevalence in several countries and the difficult metabolic control of individuals with the disease justify studying strategies for primary prevention. The population has sought alternative and cheaper ways to treat the disease, including the use of plants considered medicinal by the population. In this study, we carried out a systematic review on the applicability of isolates and fractions of plant extracts in animal models in type II diabetes. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed and Scopus databases. Studies using other experimental animals (horses, rabbits, and monkeys) and humans as well as articles in Chinese, German, and Russian were excluded. We assessed the quality of the studies included by using the criteria described in the ARRIVE guidelines. In general, the animals that received fractions or isolates presented reduced blood glucose levels, normalization of body weight and plasma insulin levels, and reduced total triglycerides and cholesterol. In addition, we observed wide variation among the analyzed parameters, which hindered comparison between the studies found. In further studies, standardized reports and experimental design would help to establish comparable study groups and advance the overall knowledge, thus facilitating translatability from animal data to human clinical conditions.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27843476 PMCID: PMC5098081 DOI: 10.1155/2016/3537163
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Results obtained after the advanced search in the databases. After literature review, 39 papers were selected from Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, and the PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097. For more information, visit www.prisma-statement.org. Prism: systematic review.
Biases analyses (ARRIVE) of the studies of the effects of fractions and isolates from the plants in the treatment of the type II diabetes.
| Isolates | Fractions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| References | Miura, et al., 2001 [ | Kavishankar and Lakshmidevi, 2014 [ | Moser et al., 2014 [ | Chen et al., 2009 [ | Ruan et al., 2012 [ | Sato et al., 2002 [ | Lo et al., 2006 [ | Yoshida et al., 2013 [ | Zhao et al., 2014 [ | Kumar et al., 2012 [ | Luo et al., 1999 [ | Perez-Gutierrez and Damian-Guzman, 2012 [ | Kwon et al., 2012 [ | Krenisky et al., 1999 [ | Hsu et al., 2014 [ | Ren et al., 2015 [ | Agrawal et al., 2013 [ | Zhang et al., 2013 [ | Jeong and Song, 2011 [ | Chakrabarti et al., 2005 [ | Paramaguru et al., 2014 [ | Kiho et al., 2001 [ | Fujii et al., 2009 [ | Chen et al., 2013 [ | Arya et al., 2012 [ | Klomann et al., 2010 [ | Arya et al., 2012 [ | Xu et al., 2015 [ | Ibrahim and Islam, 2014 [ | Ganeshpurkar et al., 2014 [ | Shu et al., 2009 [ | Zhao et al., 2005 [ | Hwang et al., 2009 [ | Wu et al., 2005 [ | Xu et al., 2011 [ | Costantino et al., 2003 [ | Yu et al., 2015 [ | Kharbanda et al., 2014 [ | Roman-Ramos et al., 2012 [ | ||
| Accurate and concise description of the content of the article | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 33 | 84.62% | ||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Summary of the background, research objectives, methods, main findings, and conclusions | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 36 | 92.30% | |||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sufficient scientific background | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 37 | 94.87% | ||
| Explanation of the experimental approach and rationale | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 37 | 94.87% | ||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Clear primary and second objectives | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 32 | 82.05% | |||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nature of the ethical review permissions and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 36 | 92.3% | |||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Number of animals per group | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 29 | 74.35% | ||||||||||
| Information on whether the experiment was performed as a blind controlled study | X | X | X | X | X | X | 6 | 15.38% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Treatment | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 39 | 100.00% |
| Dosage of treatment | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 37 | 94.87% | ||
| Route of administration | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 38 | 97.44% | |
| Duration of treatment | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 35 | 89.74% | ||||
| Time of day for treatment administration | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 9 | 23.07% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Location used for administration of treatment | X | 1 | 2.56% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rationale for choice of specific dosage | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 12 | 30.76% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rationale for choice of specific route of administration | X | X | X | X | X | X | 6 | 15.38% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Information on animal species | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 35 | 89.74% | ||||
| Strain of the animals | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 29 | 74.36% | ||||||||||
| Sex of the animals | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 36 | 92.30% | |||
| Animals weight range | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 22 | 56.41% | |||||||||||||||||
| Age of the animals | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 22 | 56.41% | |||||||||||||||||
| Description of genetic modification status (knock-out, transgenic, and SPF) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 18 | 46.15% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Information related to previous procedures performed on the animals | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 25 | 64.10% | ||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Housing of experimental animals (type of facility, type of cage or housing, material, and number of cage companions) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 14 | 35.89% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Husbandry conditions (breeding programme, light/dark cycle, and temperature of water) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 33 | 84.62% | ||||||
| Welfare-related assessments and interventions that were carried out before, during, or after the experiment | X | X | X | X | X | 5 | 12.82% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total number of animals used in each experiment and the number of animals in each experimental group | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 22 | 56.41% | |||||||||||||||||
| Explanation regarding the decision of the number of animals and details of sample size calculation | X | X | 2 | 5.12% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Full details of how animals were allocated to experimental groups (including randomization or matching) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 11 | 28.20% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Order in which the animals in the different experimental groups were treated and assessed | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 28 | 71.79% | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Clear experimental outcomes assessed | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 28 | 71.79% | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Statistical methods used for each analysis | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 34 | 87.18% | |||||
| Specification of the unit of analysis for each dataset | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 33 | 84.61% | ||||||
| Methods used to assess whether the data met the assumptions of the statistical approach | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 34 | 87.18% | |||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description of the animals health status, for each experimental group, before treatment | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 18 | 46.15% | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Number or animals in each group included in each analysis (absolute numbers) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 12 | 30.76% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Animals or data not included in the analysis (and explanation for the exclusion) | X | 1 | 2.56% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Information (mean = standard deviation) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 20 | 51.28% | |||||||||||||||||||
| Information on quantification of inflammatory cells (mean = standard deviation) | X | 1 | 2.56% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Information on mortality of experimental animal (mean = standard deviation) | X | X | X | 3 | 7.69% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Modifications to the experimental protocols made to reduce adverse events | X | X | 2 | 5.12% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Interpretation of the results, taking into account the study objectives and hypotheses | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 35 | 89.74% | ||||
| Comments on the study limitations (sources of bias and imprecision associated with the results) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 12 | 30.76% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments on how the findings are likely to translate to other species or systems (relevance to human biology) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 22 | 56.41% | |||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| List of funding sources and the role of the funder(s) in the study | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 28 | 71.79% | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | 17 | 28 | 31 | 29 | 24 | 15 | 33 | 26 | 28 | 27 | 23 | 25 | 27 | 23 | 20 | 24 | 21 | 24 | 22 | 27 | 29 | 25 | 32 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 29 | 27 | 28 | 22 | 21 | 25 | 32 | 32 | 16 | 17 | 38 | 26 | 30 | ||
Figure 2Summary of the articles describing the main fractions of plants, their species, families, used control groups, and the main countries where researches on this topic have been developed. Data obtained from the qualitative and ethnobotanic analysis. Flowchart fractions.
Figure 3Summary of the articles describing the main isolates of plants, their species, families, used control groups, and the main countries where a research on this topic has been developed. Data obtained from the qualitative and ethnobotanic analysis. Flowchart isolates. The popular name of the plant because the scientific name was not found.
Figure 4Main results demonstrating the action of fractions and isolates from plants on the treatment of type II diabetes. Flowchart: isolates and fractions.
| Title | Author/publication year | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Isolates | [ | Ren et al. (2015) | China |
| [ | Miura et al. (2001) | Japan | |
| [ | Kavishankar and Lakshmidevi (2014) | India | |
| [ | Moser et al. (2014) | Switzerland | |
| [ | Ruan et al. (2012) | Taiwan | |
| [ | Sato et al. (2002) | Japan | |
| [ | Lo et al. (2006) | Taiwan | |
| [ | Yoshida et al. (2013) | Japan | |
| [ | Krenisky et al. (1999) | USA | |
| [ | Zhao et al. (2014) | China | |
| [ | Perez-Gutierrez and Damian-Guzman (2012) | Mexico | |
| [ | Luo et al. (1999) | USA | |
| [ | Kwon et al. (2012) | South Korea | |
| [ | Chen et al. (2009) | China | |
| [ | Hsu et al. (2014) | Taiwan | |
| [ | Kumar et al. (2012) | India | |
|
| |||
| Fractions | [ | Zhang et al. (2013) | China |
| [ | Jeong and Song (2011) | Korea | |
| [ | Agrawal et al. (2013) | India | |
| [ | Paramaguru et al. (2014) | India | |
| [ | Chakrabarti et al. (2005) | India | |
| [ | Kiho et al. (2001) | Japan | |
| [ | Fujii et al. (2009) | Japan | |
| [ | Chen et al. (2013) | China | |
| [ | Klomann et al. (2010) | Germany | |
| [ | Arya et al. (2012) | Malaysia | |
| [ | Xu et al. (2015) | China | |
| [ | Ibrahim and Islam (2014) | South Africa | |
| [ | Ganeshpurkar et al. (2014) | India | |
| [ | Shu et al. (2009) | China | |
| [ | Roman-Ramos et al. (2012) | Mexico | |
| [ | Zhao et al. (2005) | China | |
| [ | Hwang et al. (2009) | South Korea | |
| [ | Wu et al. (2005) | China | |
| [ | Xu et al. (2011) | China | |
| [ | Costantino et al. (2003) | Italy | |
| [ | Yu et al. (2015) | China | |
| [ | Bharti et al. (2013) | India | |
| [ | Kharbanda et al. (2014) | India | |
| Title | Animal model/strain | Number of animals | Sex | Age | Weight | Housing of animals | Animals per cage | Groups and number of animals in each group | Randomization | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isolates | [ | Wistar rats | 18 | M | 7 w | 200 g | Cages | 5 | 3 groups (6 in each group) | Yes |
| [ | Mice | ? | M | 12 w | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | |
| [ | Wistar rats | 36 | M&F | ? | 150–180 g | Cages | ? | 6 groups (6 animals in each) | ? | |
| [ | ob/ob mice | 68 | M | 7-8 w | ? | Cages | 1 | 8 groups (8 animals in each) | ? | |
| [ | Mice | ? | M | 8–10 w | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | |
| [ | C57BLK mice | ? | M | 7 w | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | |
| [ | Wistar rats | 102 | M | ? | 200 g | Cages | 1 | 6 groups (12 animals in each group) and 3 groups (10 animals in each group) | Yes | |
| [ | GK rats | 12 | M | ? | ? | Cages | 1 | 2 groups (6 animals in each group) | ? | |
| [ | C57BL/K mice & Sprague- Dawley rats | ? | M | 8 w | ? | ? | 4 | ? Groups (8 animals in each group) | ? | |
| [ | Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima Fatty (OLETF) rats | 18 | M | 26 w | ? | ? | ? | 3 groups (6 animals in each group) | Yes | |
| [ | ?/mice | 42 | M | ? | 20–25 g | Cages | 2 | 7 groups (6 animals in each group) | ? | |
| [ | C57BLK mice | ? | M | 7-8 w | ? | Cages | 4 | ? groups (5–8 animals in each group) | ? | |
| [ | C57BLK mice | 90 | M | 8–10 w | ? | ? | 1 | 6 groups (15 animals in each group) | Yes | |
| [ | Mice | 30 | M&F | 8–12 w | ? | Cages | 1 | 3 groups (10 animals in each group) | Yes | |
| [ | Mice | ? | M | 8 w | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | |
| [ | Charles Foster Albino rats | 30 | M | ? | ? | ? | ? | 5 groups (6 animals in each group) | ? | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Fractions | [ | SPF km mice | ? | M | ? | 20 ± 2 g | ? | ? | 7 groups (animals in each group?) | Yes |
| [ | C57BLK mice | ? | ? | 5 w | ? | Cages | 5 | 5 groups (animals in each group?) | ? | |
| [ | Wistar rats | ? | M | ? | 200–250 g | ? | ? | ? | ? | |
| [ | Albino Wistar rats | 66 | M | ? | 180–200 g | Cages | ? | 11 groups (6 animals in each group) | ? | |
| [ | Long-Evans rats | ? | M&F | 12–14 w | 150 g | ? | ? | 5 groups (6–9 animals in each group) | ? | |
| [ | KK- Ay-TA mice | ? | M | 5 w | 25–30 g | ? | 1 | 3 groups (animals in each group?) | ? | |
| [ | Goto-Kakizaki rats | 14 | M | 5 w | ? | ? | ? | 3 groups (animals in each group?) | Yes | |
| [ | Sprague-Dawley rats | 72 | M | ? | 180–220 g | ? | ? | 6 groups (6 animals in each group) for SD; 6 groups (6 animals in each group) for SDF | ? | |
| [ | db/db mice | 45 | M | 5 w | ? | Cages | 1 | 5 groups (9 animals in each group) | ? | |
| [ | Sprague-Dawley rats | 72 | M&F | ? | 180–200 g | ? | ? | 12 groups (6 animals in each group) | ? | |
| [ | SPF km mice | 50 | M | ? | 20 ± 2 g | ? | ? | 5 groups (10 animals in each group) | Yes | |
| [ | Sprague-Dawley rats | 48 | M | 6 w | 207.60 ± 4.27 g | Cage | 2 | 6 groups (8 animals in each group) | Yes | |
| [ | Wistar rats | 20 | M | ? | 150–200 g | ? | ? | 4 groups (5 animals in each group) | ? | |
| [ | Sprague-Dawley rats | ? | ? | ? | 220 ± 4.5 g | Special animal house | ? | ? | ? | |
| [ | CD-1 mice | ? | M | ? | 30–35 g | ? | ? | ? | ? | |
| [ | Wistar rats | 40 | M | ? | 230–250 g | Cages | ? | ? | Yes | |
| [ | C57BL/KsJ-leprdb/leprdb mice | 98 | M | 3 w | 9.7–14.2 g | Conventional state | ? | 7 groups (14 in each group) | ? | |
| [ | Sprague-Dawley rat | 34 | M | 8 w | 200 g | ? | 5 | 4 groups (2 groups with 10 animals and 2 groups with 12 animals in each) | ? | |
| [ | ob/ob mice | ? | 6-7 w | ? | ? | ? | 4 groups (8 animals in each group) | ? | ||
| [ | C57BL/KsJ db/db mice | ? | M | 8 w | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | |
| [ | Wistar rats | 70 | M | ? | 190–200 g | Cages | 1 | 7 groups (8 animals in each group) | Yes | |
| [ | Albino Wistar rats | 24 | M | ? | 150–160 g | ? | ? | 4 groups (6 animals in each group) | ? | |
| [ | Albino Wistar rats | 90 | ? | ? | 150–200 g | Cages | ? | 15 groups (6 animals in each group) | ? | |
| Title | Plant species | Isolate/fraction | Administration | Doses used | Duration of treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isolates | [ | Mulberry | Mulberry leaf polysaccharide | Gavage | 200 mg/kg | 6 days of treatment |
| [ |
| Mangiferin | Orally | 30 mg/kg | ? | |
| [ |
| N-Trisaccharide | Gavage | 50, 5 mg/kg | 28 days of treatment | |
| [ |
| Ze 450 | Gavage | 10, 30, 90 mg/kg | 7 days of treatment | |
| [ |
| Borapetoside C | Orally | 5 mg/kg | 4 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| Dehydrotrametenolic acid | Gavage | 110 mg/kg | 14 days of treatment | |
| [ |
| Acidic polysaccharide glucuronoxylomannan (GXM) | Gavage | 1 g/kg | 15 days of treatment | |
| [ |
| falcarindiol | Orally | 15 mg/kg | ? | |
| [ |
| Bakuchiol | Gavage | 1, 150, 250 mg/kg | 2 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
|
| Orally | 10 mg/kg | 4 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| Meliacinolin | Orally by gastric intubations | 20 mg/kg | 28 days of treatment | |
| [ |
| Novel terpenoid-type quinones (SP-18904 and SP-18905) | Gavage | 100 mg/kg | 4 days of treatment | |
| [ |
| Platyconic acid (PA), platycodin D (PD), platycoside E (PE), and saponin with low activity (DPE) | Gavage | 20 mg/kg | 8 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| Rhaponticin | Orally | 125 mg/kg | 4 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| Flavonoid rutin | Gavage | 25 mg/kg | ? | |
| [ |
| Bergenin | Orally | 2.5, 5, and 10 mg/kg | 14 days of treatment | |
|
| ||||||
| Fractions | [ |
|
| ? | 20 mg/kg | 4 weeks of treatment |
| [ |
| Ethanol extract of | Orally | 3 different concentrations of MVE-H (10, 20, or 40 mg/kg) | 4 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| The partially purified alkaloid basified toluene fraction (PPABTF) | Orally | 10, 20 mg/kg | 2 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| Ethyl acetate fraction (PAFEF) and subfractions PAFE1, PAFE2, and e PAFE3 | Intragastric tube | 200, 400 mg/kg, and 15, 30 mg/kg | 30 days of treatment | |
| [ |
|
| Orally | 250 mg/kg | 28 days of treatment | |
| [ |
| Acidic polysaccharide (TAP) and the degradation product (TAP-H) | Orally | 0.5 g/L, 1.5 g/L | 10 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| The Crude Conophylline Preparation I (CCP-I) | Orally | 200, 50 g/kg | 15 days of treatment | |
| [ |
|
| Gavage | ? | 21 days of treatment | |
| [ |
| The lipid fraction, the saponin fraction, or the hydrophilic residue of bitter gourd | Orally | 150 mg/kg | 5 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| Crude methanolic fraction (CAMF) | Injected intraperitoneally (IP) or orally | 50 and 100 mg/kg | 4 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| Polysaccharides obtained from | Orally | 150 and 300 mg/kg | 2 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
|
| Orally | 150 mg/kg and 300 mg/kg | 4 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
|
| Orally | 200 and 400 mg/kg | 21 days of treatment | |
| [ |
| Total flavonoids of | Orally | 50, 100, and 200 mg/kg | 30 days of treatment | |
| [ |
| Aqueous-precipitate fraction (AP-fraction) | Gavage | 200 mg/kg | 15 days of treatment | |
| [ |
|
| Orally | 10 mg/kg | 3 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| Grape seed extract (GSE), ethylacetate (e), and ethylacetate/ethanol (ee) | Orally | 50 and 30 mg/kg | 8 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
|
| Orally | 400 mg/kg | 5 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| Water-soluble | Intragastrically | 150 and 300 mg/kg | 23 days of treatment | |
| [ |
|
| Gavage | 50 mg/kg and 63.4 mg/kg | 7 days of treatment | |
| [ |
| Saponins from | Orally | 200, 100, and 50 mg/kg | 12 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| Tocopherol | ? | 2, 5 g/kg | 6 weeks of treatment | |
| [ |
| Methanol fraction, chloroform fraction, and petroleum ether fraction | Orally | 50, 100, and 200 mg/kg | 15 days of treatment | |
| Title | Drug for diabetes induction | Route of induction | Hyperglycemia | Control of glycemia | Insulin tolerance test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isolates | [ | Diet with 41.2% fat and a low-dose STZ (35 mg/kg body weight) | Intraperitoneal | Glucose ≥ 7.8 mmol/L | ? | Yes |
| [ | Genetically modified | — | — | ? | Yes | |
| [ | Nicotinamide (NA) at 230 mg/kg and STZ at 65 mg/kg | Intraperitoneal | Glucose ≥ 250 mg/dL | Yes | Yes | |
| [ | Genetically modified | — | — | ? | ? | |
| [ | STZ 150 mg/kg | Intraperitoneal | Glucose ≥ 150 mg/dL | Yes | Yes | |
| [ | Genetically modified | — | — | ? | ? | |
| [ | STZ (65 mg/kg) and nicotinamide (200 mg/kg) | Intraperitoneal | Glucose > 250 mg/100 mL | Yes | Yes | |
| [ | Genetically modified | — | — | ? | Yes | |
| [ | STZ 50 mg/kg | Intravenous | Glucose 300–600 mg/dL | Yes | ? | |
| [ | Genetically modified | — | — | ? | Yes | |
| [ | Nicotinamide (120 mg/kg) and STZ (60 mg/kg) | Intraperitoneal | Glucose > 250 mg/dL | Yes | ? | |
| [ | STZ 150 mg/kg | Intravenous | Glucose 300–600 mg/dL | Yes | Yes | |
| [ | STZ 20 mg/kg | ? | ? | Yes | Yes | |
| [ | STZ/? | ? | ? | Yes | ? | |
| [ | Insulin receptor antagonist S960 (50 nmol/kg) | Intravenous injection | ? | Yes | ? | |
| [ | STZ (65 mg/kg) and nicotinamide (110 mg/kg) | Intraperitoneal injection | Glucose 200 mg/dL | Yes | Yes | |
|
| ||||||
| Fractions | [ | High fat-diet and low-dose alloxan (90 mg/kg) | Intraperitoneal | Glucose ≥ 10 mmol/L | Yes | ? |
| [ | Genetically modified | — | — | Yes | ? | |
| [ | STZ and nicotinamide | Intraperitoneal | ? | Yes | ? | |
| [ | STZ (60 mg/kg) and nicotinamide (120 mg/kg) | Intraperitoneal | Glucose > 250 mg/dL | Yes | ? | |
| [ | STZ 90 mg/kg | Intraperitoneal injection | Glucose 7–12 mmol/L | Yes | Yes | |
| [ | Genetically modified | — | — | ? | Yes | |
| [ | Streptozotocin 60 mg/kg | Intraperitoneal | Glucose > 250 mg/dL | Yes | ? | |
| [ | High fat-diet and a singular injection of streptozotocin (STZ) (35 mg/kg) | Intraperitoneal | Glucose ≥ 11.1 mmol/L | Yes | Yes | |
| [ | Genetically modified | — | — | ? | ? | |
| [ | Streptozotocin (STZ) (65 mg/kg) | Intraperitoneal | Glucose 22–26 mmol/L | Yes | ? | |
| [ | Streptozotocin (STZ) (70 mg/kg) | Intraperitoneal | ? | Yes | ? | |
| [ | STZ 40 mg/kg | Intraperitoneal injection | Glucose > 18 mmol/L | Yes | ? | |
| [ | STZ 50 mg/kg | Intraperitoneal | Glucose > 200 mg/100 mL | Yes | ? | |
| [ | Alloxan (100 and 120 mg/kg) | Intraperitoneal | Glucose > 11.0 mmol/L | Yes | ? | |
| [ | STZ 137 mg/kg | Intraperitoneal | ? | ? | ? | |
| [ | STZ 50 mg/kg | Intraperitoneal | Glucose > 16 mmol/L | Yes | Yes | |
| [ | Genetically modified | — | — | Yes | ? | |
| [ | STZ 30 mg/kg | Intravenous injection | Glucose > 6.7 mmol/L | Yes | Yes | |
| [ | Genetically diabetic model | — | — | Yes | Yes | |
| [ | Genetically diabetic model | — | — | ? | Yes | |
| [ | STZ 30 mg/kg | Intraperitoneal | Glucose > 16.7 mmol/L | Yes | Yes | |
| [ | PX-407 solution (10 mg/kg) | ? | Blood glucose level of 200 mg/dL or higher | Yes | Yes | |
| [ | STZ (45 mg/kg) | Intraperitoneal | Glucose > 200 mg/dL | Yes | ? | |