| Literature DB >> 29544490 |
Alain N'guessan Yao1,2, Mamadou Kamagaté3, Augustin Kouao Amonkan4, Philippe Chabert5, Fidèle Kpahé4, Camille Koffi3, Mathieu N'goran Kouamé3, Cyril Auger5, Séraphin Kati-Coulibaly4, Valérie Schini-Kerth5, Henri Die-Kakou3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phyllanthus amarus (Schum & Thonn), a plant belonging to the family of Euphorbiaceae is used in Ivorian traditional medicine to treat cardiovascular disorders such as hypertension. However, although this plant has been described as a diuretic agent, the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the mechanism action of diuretic effects of an ethanolic fraction of Phyllanthus amarus (EFPA) in rats.Entities:
Keywords: Diuresis; Electrolytes; Phyllanthus amarus; Prostaglandins
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29544490 PMCID: PMC5856278 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-018-2158-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Urinary excretion induced by increasing doses of EFPA in rats
| Groups | Urine volume (mL/100 g) | Urinary volumetric excretion (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 h | 4 h | 6 h | 8 h | 2 h | 4 h | 6 h | 8 h | |
| Control | 0.14 ± 0.09 | 0.20 ± 0.07 | 0.50 ± 0.04 | 0.70 ± 0.05 | 2.70 ± 2.83 | 3.80 ± 1.10 | 8.76 ± 0.80 | 13.62 ± 0.92 |
| EFPA (5 mg/kg) | 0.84 ± 0.11* | 1.49 ± 0.14* | 1.73 ± 0.20* | 2.09 ± 0.17* | 16.61 ± 2.01* | 29.40 ± 3.02* | 34.20 ± 3.64* | 41.20 ± 3.32* |
| EFPA (10 mg/kg) | 1.14 ± 0.13* | 1.82 ± 0.11* | 2.21 ± 0.15* | 2.80 ± 0.20* | 22.92 ± 2.60* | 36.50 ± 2.53* | 44.20 ± 3.80* | 55.94 ± 3.40* |
| EFPA (20 mg/kg) | 1.67 ± 0.15* | 2.06 ± 0.16* | 2.34 ± 0.10* | 2.86 ± 0.12* | 33.30 ± 4.10* | 41.23 ± 2.90* | 46.80 ± 2.70* | 57.10 ± 1.90* |
| EFPA (40 mg/kg) | 2.02 ± 0.11* | 2.34 ± 0.10* | 2.51 ± 0.18* | 3.09 ± 0.13* | 40.60 ± 1.70* | 47.12 ± 2.83* | 50.53 ± 3.80* | 60.20 ± 2.90* |
| EFPA (80 mg/kg) | 2.33 ± 0.12* | 2.60 ± 0.13* | 2.92 ± 0.13* | 3.16 ± 0.15* | 46.61 ± 2.10* | 51.90 ± 2.73* | 58.41 ± 1.91* | 63.34 ± 3.24* |
The urine volumes expressed as mL/100 g were calculated based on body weight of rats and urinary volumetric excretion values are expressed as a percentage of the initial hydric overload (50 mL/kg). Data are given as means ± SEM of 6 different experiments. Statistical analyses were assessed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s post- test. *p ˂ 0.001 versus control
Fig. 1Evolution of the urinary volumetric excretion induced by highest dose of EFPA (80 mg/kg) and Furosemide (5 mg/kg), in rats. The urinary volumetric excretion values are expressed as a percentage of the initial hydric overload (50 mL/kg). Data are given as means ± SEM of 6 different experiments. Statistical analyses were assessed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s post- test. *p < 0.001 versus control, and #p < 0.05 versus EFPA
Fig. 2Inhibitory effect of indomethacin on urinary volumetric excretion induced by EFPA in rats. Rats were treated over 8 h period with a single dose of either vehicle (control group), EFPA (10 mg/kg) or EFPA (10 mg/kg) + indomethacin (5 mg/kg, 1 h pretreatment) administered i.p. Data are given as means ± SEM of 6 different experiments. Statistical analyses were assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s post- test *p < 0.05 versus control, and #p < 0.05 versus EFPA
Inhibitory effect of indomethacin on urinary electrolyte excretion induced by EFPA in rats
| Groups | Urinary concentrations (mEq/L) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Na+ | Cl− | K+ | Ca2+ | |
| Control | 70.50 ± 6.05 | 81.20 ± 3.10 | 52.20 ± 2.01 | 1.80 ± 0.10 |
| EFPA (10 mg/kg) | 90.00 ± 4.70* | 97.33 ± 2.90* | 36.70 ± 1.63* | 1.73 ± 0.10 |
| EFPA (10 mg/kg) + Indomethacin (5 mg/kg) | 43.50 ± 4.43*,# | 96.70 ± 4.10* | 61.00 ± 2.42*,# | 3.10 ± 0.20 |
Rats were treated over a 24 h period with a single dose of vehicle (control group), EFPA (10 mg/kg) or EFPA (10 mg/kg) + indomethacin (5 mg/kg, 1 h pretreatment) administered i.p. Data are given as means ± SEM of 6 different experiments. Statistical analyses were assessed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s post- test. *p < 0.05 versus control, and #p < 0.05 versus EFPA
Inhibitory effect of indomethacin on plasma electrolyte level induced by EFPA in rats
| Groups | Plasma levels (mEq/L) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Na+ | Cl− | K+ | Ca2+ | |
| Control | 114.70 ± 5.51 | 104.33 ± 3.90 | 70.50 ± 2.90 | 5.40 ± 2.52 |
| EFPA (10 mg/kg) | 125.50 ± 4.00 | 102.00 ± 4.32 | 54.70 ± 2.80* | 5.21 ± 2.60 |
| EFPA (10 mg/kg) + Indomethacin (5 mg/kg) | 119.33 ± 4.43 | 103.33 ± 3.41 | 50.83 ± 5.10* | 5.13 ± 2.54 |
Rats were treated over a 24 h period with a single dose of either vehicle (control group), EFPA (10 mg/kg) or EFPA (10 mg/kg) + indomethacin (5 mg/kg, 1 h pretreatment) administered i.p. Data are given as means ± SEM of 6 different experiments. Statistical analyses were assessed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s post- test. *p < 0.05 versus control, and #p < 0.05 versus EFPA
Effects of EFPA (10 mg/kg) and EFPA (10 mg/kg) + indomethacin (5 mg/kg, 1 h pretreatment) administered i.p. on plasma levels of creatinine and urea
| Groups | Control | EFPA (10 mg/kg) | EFPA (10 mg/kg) + Indomethacin (5 mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Creatinine (μmol/L) | 94.28 ± 7.80 | 88.40 ± 4.56 | 110.47 ± 6.75# |
| Urea (mmol/L) | 4.08 ± 0.38 | 3.29 ± 0.43 | 5.83 ± 0.58*, # |
Data are given as means ± SEM of 6 different experiments. Statistical analyses were assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s post- test *p < 0.05 versus control, and #p < 0.05 versus EFPA