| Literature DB >> 29201895 |
Karama Zouari Bouassida1, Sana Bardaa2, Meriem Khimiri1, Tarek Rebaii3, Slim Tounsi1, Lobna Jlaiel1, Mohamed Trigui1.
Abstract
The present paper investigated the efficiency of Urtica dioica (U. dioica) on hemostatic and wound healing activities. U. dioica leaf extracts were evaluated for their antibacterial and antioxidant effects as well as their flavonoid and polyphenol content. The hydroethanolic extract (EtOH-H2OE), showing the most potent antibacterial and antioxidant activities in vitro, thanks to its flavonoid and polyphenol richness, was selected for hemostatic and wound healing evaluation. Twenty-four rats completing full-thickness wounds were split into four groups. The wounds were topically treated with saline solution, glycerol, "CICAFLORA," and U. dioica EtOH-H2OE (50 µL/mm2) until day 11. The wound healing effect was assessed by macroscopic, histological, and biochemical parameters. Rats treated with EtOH-H2OE showed fast wound closure (92.39%) compared to the control animals (60.91%) on the 11th day of wounding (P < 0.01). Histopathological and biochemical explorations showed full epidermal regeneration and an improvement of the hydroxyproline content in the U. dioica EtOH-H2OE treated rats. Analysis of fatty acids and sterols by GC-MS showed the presence of unsaturated fatty acids and a high concentration of lupeol known for their involvement in reepithelialization. These results prove the efficiency of U. dioica EtOH-H2OE in wound healing and supported its traditional use.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29201895 PMCID: PMC5672119 DOI: 10.1155/2017/1047523
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Amounts of total phenolic compounds, total flavonoids, and determined IC50 values of the DPPH free radical-scavenging assay and β-carotene bleaching test of U. dioica. Ascorbic acid and BHT were used as standards.
| Extract | Phenolic contenta | Flavonoids contenta | DPPHa |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EtOH-H2OE | 116.9 ± 5.416 | 43 ± 0.019 | 10.4 ± 0.001 | 15 ± 0.001 |
|
| ND | ND | 206 ± 0.106 | 210 ± 0,001 |
| EtOAc-F | 23.15 ± 2,674 | 33.2 ± 0,033 | 198 ± 0.054 | 175 ± 0.001 |
| Water-F | 8.8 ± 1.442 | 9.96 ± 0,018 | 286 ± 0.002 | 243 ± 0.001 |
| Ascorbic acid | — | — | 3.5 ± 0.2 | — |
| BHT | — | — | — | 5.1 ± 0.1 |
aEach value represents the mean ± SD of three experiments; b: mg of gallic acid equivalent per g of dry plant extract; c: mg of Quercetin equivalent per g of dry plant extract; ND: not detected; —: not tested.
GC/MS analysis of fatty acids, terpenes, and sterols of the U. dioica EtOH-H2OE.
| Peak | Components | Fatty acids (FAs) | Retention time (min) | Relative composition (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saturated fatty acids (SFAs) | ||||
| 1 | Myristic acid | C14:0 | 26.067 | 0.39 |
| 2 | Pentadecanoic acid | C15:0 | 28.946 | 1.37 |
| 3 | Palmitic acid | C16:0 | 29.707 | 13.53 |
| 5 | Stearic acid | C18:0 | 32.337 | 13.79 |
| 9 | Arachidic acid | C20:0 | 36.247 | 0.64 |
| 10 | Behenic acid | C22:0 | 39.209 | 0.30 |
| ∑ saturated fatty acids | 30.02 | |||
|
| ||||
| Unsaturated fatty acids (SFAs) | ||||
| 4 | Palmitoleic acid | C16:1 n-7 | 30.182 | 1.29 |
| 6 | Oleic acid | C18:1 n-9 | 32.676 | 24.33 |
| 7 | linoleic acid | C18:2 n-6 | 33.301 | 10.4 |
| 8 | Linolenic acid | C18:3 n-3 | 34.154 | 1.83 |
| ∑ unsaturated Fatty acids | 37.85 | |||
| Total fatty acids | 67.87 | |||
| Esters of FAs | ||||
| 11 |
| C18:1 n-9 | 37.016 | 0.44 |
| 12 |
| C18:1 n-9 | 37.122 | 0.14 |
| ∑ esters FAs | 0.58 | |||
| Ni- | 31.55 | |||
|
| ||||
| Terpenes and sterols | ||||
| 1 | Lupeol | — | 25.72 | 85.96 |
| 2 | Neophytadiene | — | 26.361 | 0.14 |
| 3 | Phytol | — | 31.809 | 0.95 |
| 4 | Stigma-4-en-3-one | — | 46. 631 | 0.09 |
| 5 |
| — | 47.000 | 0.24 |
| Total compounds | 87.38 | |||
| Ni- | 12.62 | |||
aTotal of nonidentified compounds.
Antibacterial activity of organic extracts of U. dioica (inhibition diameter ZI in mm and MIC in mg/mL).
| EtOH-H2OE | EtOAc-F | Gentamicin | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZI | MIC | ZI | MIC | ZI | |
|
| 12 ± 0.1 | 5 | 10 ± 0.4 | 5 | 25 ± 0.8 |
|
| 18 ± 0.6 | 1.25 | 12 ± 0.8 | 2.5 | 20 ± 0.2 |
|
| 20 ± 0.2 | 0.312 | 0 | ND | 18 ± 0.5 |
|
| 0 | ND | 0 | ND | 21 ± 0.9 |
Values are given as mean ± SD of triplicate experiment. Gentamicin was used as a standard antibiotic at a concentration of 15 µg/well; ND: not determined.
Variation of the body weights of rats among the experimental period.
| Day | Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | 162 ± 1.58 | 163 ± 4.39 | 169 ± 6.16 | 161 ± 4.51 |
| After treatment | 173 ± 3.66 | 173.8 ± 4.02 | 178 ± 5.89 | 174 ± 6.21 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SD for weight of six rats in each group. Means followed by the same column are not significantly different at P > 0.05. Group I was treated with physiologic serum (negative control); Group II was treated with glycerol; Group III was treated with “CICAFLORA cream” (positive control); and Group IV was treated with the hydroalcoholic extract of U. dioica.
Representative photographs of macroscopic assessment of wounds for the four studied groups on day 1, day 3, day 7, and day 11.
| Days | Group I: untreated group | Group II: glycerol treated group | Group III CICAFLORA treated group | Group IV: |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 |
|
|
|
|
| Day 3 |
|
|
|
|
| Day 7 |
|
|
|
|
| Day 9 |
|
|
|
|
| Day 11 |
|
|
|
|
Group I was treated with physiologic serum (negative control); Group II was treated with glycerol; Group III was treated with “CICAFLORA cream” (positive control); and Group IV was treated with the hydroalcoholic extract of U. dioica.
Effects of Urtica dioica and CICAFLORA on wound contraction (%).
| Days | 0 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group I | 0.00 | 3.50 ± 0.14c | 7.19 ± 1.13d | 19.63 ± 0.34d | 30.63 ± 1.49d | 60.91 ± 1.16d |
| Group II | 0.00 | 9.22 ± 0.68b | 16.62 ± 1.13c | 32.15 ± 0.84c | 49.73 ± 1.17c | 70.30 ± 0.31c |
| Group III | 0.00 | 8.33 ± 1.13b | 31.56 ± 1.17b | 42.36 ± 0.35b | 62.18 ± 0.44b | 85.36 ± 1.96b |
| Group IV | 0.00 | 12.36 ± 0.21a | 34.01 ± 1.14a | 48.97 ± 1.14a | 74.45 ± 0.94a | 92.39 ± 1.13a |
Values are given as mean standard deviation for groups of six rats each. Data with different letters for each column represent significant difference at P < 0.05. Group I was treated with the physiologic serum (negative control); Group II was treated with glycerol; Group III was treated with “CICAFLORA cream” (positive control); and Group IV was treated with the hydroalcoholic extract of Urtica dioica.
Hydroxyproline content in different experimental animal groups. All values are mean ± SD (n = 6/group).
| Groups | Hydroxyproline mg/100 mg of tissue |
|---|---|
| Group I | 18.97 ± 0.1c |
| Group II | 18.2 ± 0.3 |
| Group III | 22.68 ± 0.21b |
| Group VI | 25.90 ± 0.45a |
Group I was treated with physiologic serum (negative control); Group II was treated with glycerol; Group III was treated with “CICAFLORA cream” (positive control); and Group IV was treated with the hydroalcoholic extract of U. dioica.a, b, cDifferent letters in the same column indicate significant differences (a > b > c; P < 0.05).
Figure 1The representative photomicrographs of the effect of the physiological serum (a); glycerol (b); U. dioica (c); and “CICAFLORA” (d) treatment on rat, showing epidermal and dermal architecture of wounds on the 11th day. HE-stained histological sections are 5 mm thick and photomicrographs are taken at 20x magnifications. Ep: epidermis; Der: dermis; V: blood vessels; inf: inflammatory cells; C: collagen.