| Literature DB >> 27872709 |
Farzana Rahiman1, Edmund John Pool1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sugar cane molasses is a commonly used ingredient in several food products. Contrasting reports suggest that molasses may have potential adverse or beneficial effects on human health. However, little evidence exists that examines the effects of molasses on the different physiological systems. This study investigated the effects of sugar cane molasses on various physiological systems using in vivo and in vitro methods.Entities:
Keywords: Humoral immunity; Immunosuppression; Liver enzymes; Male reproductive - system; Molasses
Year: 2016 PMID: 27872709 PMCID: PMC5110661
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Basic Med Sci ISSN: 2008-3866 Impact factor: 2.699
Drinking volumes (ml/mouse) obtained for molasses treated and control mice for exposure period
| Group | D10 | D20 | D30 | D40 | D50 | D60 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 5.17 ± 0.06 | 4.94 ± 0.05 | 5.16 ± 0.16 | 5.47 ± 0.08 | 4.94 ± 0.03 | 5.44 ± 0.08 |
| Molasses | 6.18 ± 0.45 | 7.79± 0.80 | 8.42 ± 0.78 | 8.57 ± 0.61 | 11.26 ± 0.85 | 12.83 ± 0.82 |
All values are expressed as the mean ± SEM, where n=6 for the control and treatment groups. Oral intake of each group was monitored for the exposure period D10-D60 i.e. Day 10 (oral consumption at day 10) up to Day 60 (oral consumption at end of experiment). An asterisk
designates the statistical difference when compared to the control (P<0.05)
Body weight (g/mouse) of molasses treated and control mice for exposure period
| Group | D0 | D10 | D20 | D30 | D40 | D50 | D60 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 29.02 ± 0.50 | 29.24 ± 0.39 | 30.13 ± 0.39 | 30.38 ± 0.51 | 30.87 ± 0.57 | 30.95 ± 0.51 | 31.68 ± 0.48 |
| Molasses | 27.54 ± 0.70 | 28.40 ± 0.58 | 29.13 ± 0.61 | 29.25 ± 0.58 | 29.39 ± 0.57 | 29.42 ± 0.77 | 30.01 ± 0.62 |
All values are expressed as the mean ± SEM, where n=6 for the control and treatment groups. Body weight (BW) was recorded for the exposure period D0-D60 i.e. Day 0 (initial BW at the start of the experiment) up to Day 60 (final BW at the end of the experiment)
Figure 1The effect of sugar cane molasses on IgG anti-antigen titre in molasses treated and untreated mice. Each point is the mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean) of three replicates (n=18). An asterisk (*) indicates statistical difference when compared to the control (P<0.05)
Figure 2The effect of sugar cane molasses on testosterone synthesis in testicular cell cultures. Each point is the mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean) of three replicates (n=18). An asterisk (*) indicates statistical difference when compared to the control (P<0.05). Stimulated=▄; Unstimulated=□