| Literature DB >> 28182107 |
Ebrahim Abbasi Oshaghi1, Iraj Khodadadi1, Fatemeh Mirzaei2, Mozafar Khazaei3, Heidar Tavilani1, Mohammad Taghi Goodarzi4.
Abstract
The research was aimed at evaluating the antiglycation, antioxidant, and hepatoprotective properties of methanolic extract of Anethum graveolens (dill). The antioxidant properties, photochemical characteristics, and antiglycation effects of dill extract were measured. Carbon tetrachloride-induced hepatotoxic rats were used to show the hepatoprotective activity of dill leaves. Different concentration of dill extract (0.032, 0.065, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, and 1 mg/mL) showed potential antioxidant ability. The extract of dill leaves significantly reduced AGEs formation and also fructosamine and protein carbonyl levels in rats' liver. Thiol groups' oxidation, amyloid cross-β, and protein fragmentation (P < 0.001) significantly reduced in treated rats. Liver damage markers significantly reduced in dill-treated animals (P < 0.05). Dill with potential antioxidant, antiglycation, and hepatoprotective effects can be suggested for treatment of diabetes complications.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28182107 PMCID: PMC5274678 DOI: 10.1155/2017/6081374
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pharm (Cairo) ISSN: 2090-9918
Figure 1Antioxidant and antiradical activity of dill extract. Values are the average of triplicate experiments and presented as mean ± SEM. (a) DPPH radical scavenging activity. (b) FRAP assays. (c) Superoxide radical scavenging activity. (d) Hydrogen peroxide radical scavenging activity. (e) Metal chelating activity. (f) Reducing power activity. (g) Nitric oxide scavenging activity.
The effect of dill extract on AGE and fructosamine formation.
| Experimental groups | AGE formation | Fructosamine levels | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| +Dill 0.25 mg/ml | 38.87 ± 4.56 | 40.08 ± 7.15 | 44.91 ± 6.32 | 56.76 ± 8.03 | 3.37 ± 0.036 | 2.95 ± 0.055 | 3.03 ± 0.028 | 3.43 ± 0.005 |
| +Dill 0.5 mg/ml | 36.49 ± 6.81 | 39.78 ± 6.31 | 47.94 ± 7.28 | 54.65 ± 4.49 | 2.68 ± 0.105 | 2.86 ± 0.066 | 3.04 ± 0.063 | 3.39 ± 0.008 |
| +Dill 1 mg/ml | 28.51 ± 4.20 | 36.87 ± 5.35 | 35.32 ± 6.19 | 44.46 ± 7.33 | 2.62 ± 0.061 | 2.71 ± 0.089 | 2.83 ± 0.014 | 3.19 ± 0.020 |
| +Dill 2 mg/ml | 23.73 ± 3.01 | 31.64 ± 4.40 | 41.63 ± 2.98 | 47.07 ± 3.45 | 2.70 ± 0.105 | 2.75 ± 0.080 | 2.64 ± 0.008 | 2.97 ± 0.026 |
| +AG 2 mg/ml | 37.23 ± 5.51 | 45.56 ± 4.35 | 49.45 ± 4.02 | 55.82 ± 2.90 | 2.65 ± 0.081 | 2.74 ± 0.043 | 2.54 ± 0.139 | 2.81 ± 0.010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| +Dill 0.25 mg/ml | 44.43 ± 5.96 | 49.63 ± 5.61 | 53.80 ± 6.85 | 70.32 ± 8.73 | 2.36 ± 0.07 | 2.03 ± 0.05 | 2.10 ± 0.02 | 2.50 ± 0.01 |
| +Dill 0.5 mg/ml | 37.05 ± 5.62 | 45.01 ± 4.28 | 50.83 ± 5.58 | 64.54 ± 5.30 | 1.71 ± 0.09 | 1.94 ± 0.06 | 2.11 ± 0.06 | 2.46 ± 0.01 |
| +Dill 1 mg/ml | 33.40 ± 6.06 | 47.10 ± 5.54 | 42.21 ± 4.15 | 50.02 ± 4.44 | 1.72 ± 0.06 | 1.79 ± 0.08 | 1.90 ± 0.01 | 2.26 ± 0.02 |
| +Dill 2 mg/ml | 32.95 ± 5.28 | 41.21 ± 5.50 | 45.70 ± 5.47 | 43.29 ± 5.22 | 1.80 ± 0.10 | 1.83 ± 0.08 | 1.71 ± 0.01 | 2.04 ± 0.02 |
| +AG 2 mg/ml | 51.22 ± 4.91 | 53.63 ± 5.55 | 52.05 ± 5.22 | 59.94 ± 4.10 | 1.76 ± 0.08 | 2.20 ± 0.06 | 2.09 ± 0.04 | 2.29 ± 0.01 |
| BSA/PBS | 20.73 ± 2.43 | 20.00 ± 2.21 | 26.97 ± 5.69 | 29.20 ± 4.52 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 0.20 ± 0.01 |
P < 0.01 when compared to BSA/fructose at the same incubation time.
The effect of dill extract on the thioland carbonyl group.
| Experimental groups | Thiol group | Carbonyl group | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| +Dill 0.25 mg/ml | 2.29 ± 0.08 | 2.14 ± 0.09 | 1.98 ± 0.03 | 1.56 ± 0.06 | 2.22 ± 0.11 | 2.03 ± 0.05 | 2.12 ± 0.03 | 2.53 ± 0.02 |
| +Dill 0.5 mg/ml | 2.54 ± 0.02 | 2.32 ± 0.02 | 2.17 ± 0.09 | 1.76 ± 0.07 | 2.22 ± 0.09 | 2.02 ± 0.06 | 2.11 ± 0.05 | 2.52 ± 0.01 |
| +Dill 1 mg/ml | 2.4 ± 0.07 | 2.48 ± 0.06 | 2.39 ± 0.07 | 1.41 ± 0.03 | 1.72 ± 0.05 | 1.79 ± 0.08 | 1.92 ± 0.01 | 2.29 ± 0.02 |
| +Dill 2 mg/ml | 2.76 ± 0.02 | 2.62 ± 0.02 | 2.34 ± 0.05 | 2.40 ± 0.09 | 1.80 ± 0.10 | 1.83 ± 0.07 | 1.73 ± 0.01 | 2.07 ± 0.02 |
| +AG 2 mg/ml | 2.47 ± 0.06 | 2.35 ± 0.01 | 2.12 ± 0.04 | 1.79 ± 0.09 | 1.97 ± 0.09 | 2.03 ± 0.02 | 2.14 ± 0.01 | 2.37 ± 0.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| +Dill 0.25 mg/ml | 2.37 ± 0.04 | 2.20 ± 0.05 | 2.09 ± 0.05 | 1.75 ± 0.01 | 2.27 ± 0.05 | 2.08 ± 0.04 | 2.13 ± 0.06 | 2.90 ± 0.03 |
| +Dill 0.5 mg/ml | 2.48 ± 0.07 | 2.36 ± 0.09 | 2.16 ± 0.07 | 1.67 ± 0.10 | 1.72 ± 0.03 | 1.93 ± 0.01 | 2.20 ± 0.05 | 2.99 ± 0.02 |
| +Dill 1 mg/ml | 2.66 ± 0.03 | 2.49 ± 0.09 | 2.48 ± 0.03 | 1.54 ± 0.02 | 1.73 ± 0.05 | 1.75 ± 0.06 | 2.06 ± 0.01 | 2.71 ± 0.07 |
| +Dill 2 mg/ml | 2.60 ± 0.14 | 2.50 ± 0.12 | 2.42 ± 0.06 | 2.31 ± 0.04 | 1.81 ± 0.09 | 1.79 ± 0.03 | 1.78 ± 0.04 | 2.65 ± 0.09 |
| +AG 2 mg/ml | 2.55 ± 0.07 | 2.35 ± 0.01 | 2.25 ± 0.13 | 1.87 ± 0.01 | 1.63 ± 0.07 | 2.06 ± 0.01 | 2.12 ± 0.10 | 2.38 ± 0.04 |
| BSA/PBS | 2.73 ± 0.06 | 2.63 ± 0.07 | 2.53 ± 0.04 | 2.51 ± 0.09 | 0.21 ± 0.05 | 0.25 ± 0.06 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.02 |
P < 0.01 when compared to BSA/fructose at the same incubation time.
Figure 2(a) The effect of dill extract on the level of protein aggregation. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 3); P < 0.001 compared with BSA/fructose at the same incubation time. AG: aminoguanidine. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 3); P < 0.001 compared with BSA/fructose at the same incubation time. (b) Protein fragmentation in BSA incubated with 200 mM fructose in the presence of Cu+2 ion, aminoguanidine, and dill extract for 7 days, detected by SDS-PAGE. Protein fragmentation inhibited by aminoguanidine (lane C) and dill extract (lane D) compared with BSA/fructose. A lane: 10 mg/mL BSA, B lane: 10 mg/mL BSA + 200 mM fructose, C lane: 10 mg/mL BSA + 200 mM fructose + aminoguanidine, and D lane: 10 mg/mL BSA + 200 mM fructose + dill extract.
The effect of dill extract on biochemical factors.
| Biochemical factors | CCl4-treated | Dill (100 mg/kg) | Dill (300 mg/kg) | Normal group |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LDH (U/l) | 196.50 ± 2.29 | 132.33 ± 2.02 | 113.83 ± 4.7 | 103.00 ± 5.5 |
| ALP (U/l) | 230.17 ± 6.17 | 181.67 ± 3.50 | 145.67 ± 5.11 | 154.00 ± 0.54 |
| AST (U/l) | 273.83 ± 8.47 | 203.33 ± 4.43 | 109.00 ± 3.34 | 98.17 ± 3.79 |
| ALT (U/l) | 239.00 ± 5.31 | 104.50 ± 2.02 | 78.50 ± 7.48 | 54.33 ± 2.69 |
|
| 5.45 ± 0.611 | 3.23 ± 0.24≠ | 2.88 ± 0.36≠ | 1.32 ± 0.12 |
| Total bilirubin (mg/dl) | 3.01 ± 0.14 | 1.78 ± 0.12 | 1.49 ± 0.08 | 0.85 ± 0.04 |
| Direct bilirubin (mg/dl) | 1.01 ± 0.08 | 0.89 ± 0.20 | 0.51 ± 0.04≠ | 0.30 ± 0.03 |
| Total protein (mg/dl) | 5.47 ± 0.30 | 6.00 ± 0.24 | 6.25 ± 0.11≠ | 6.46 ± 0.08≠ |
| Albumin (mg/dl) | 2.96 ± 0.14 | 3.36 ± 0.07 | 3.49 ± 0.09≠ | 3.52 ± 0.07≠ |
| Triglyceride (mg/dl) | 121.83 ± 5.26 | 111.50 ± 4.37 | 99.67 ± 6.69 | 84.16 ± 1.83 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dl) | 110.83 ± 2.78 | 88.16 ± 7.10 | 71.16 ± 6.10≠ | 75.16 ± 7.56≠ |
| Body weight (g) | 195.67 ± 4.54 | 224.00 ± 1.93 | 220.50 ± 1.82 | 223.33 ± 1.34 |
| Liver weight (g) | 4.17 ± 0.11 | 3.37 ± 0.10≠ | 3.42 ± 0.14≠ | 3.34 ± 0.18≠ |
Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 6); P < 0.05, ≠P < 0.01, and P < 0.001 compared with CCl4-treated rats.
Figure 3Histopathological changes in the liver of different treated animals. Histology of liver in normal group showed regular structure, while CCl4-treated animals show the entire damage of hepatocytes. In dill-treated animals liver damage was restored.