| Literature DB >> 31281355 |
Md Yousuf Ali1, Nur-E Noushin Rumpa1, Sudip Paul1, Md Sakib Hossen1, E M Tanvir1, Tareq Hossan1, Moumoni Saha1, Nadia Alam1, Nurul Karim1, Md Ibrahim Khalil1, Siew Hua Gan2.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the antioxidant potentials, subacute toxicity, and beneficiary effects of methanolic extract of pomelo (Citrus grandis L. Osbeck) in rats. Long Evans rats were divided into four groups of eight animals each. The rats were orally treated with three doses of pomelo (250, 500, and 1000 mg/kg) once daily for 21 days. Pomelo extract contained high concentrations of polyphenols, flavonoids, and ascorbic acid while exhibiting high 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging activity and ferric reducing antioxidant power values. There was no significant change in the body weight, percentage water content, and relative organ weight at any administered doses. In addition, no significant alterations in the hematological parameters were also observed. However, rats which received 1000 mg/kg dose had a significant reduction in some serum parameters, including alanine transaminase (15.29%), alkaline phosphatase (2.5%), lactate dehydrogenase (15.5%), γ-glutamyltransferase (20%), creatinine (14.47%), urea (18.50%), uric acid (27.14%), total cholesterol (5.78%), triglyceride (21.44%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (40.74%), glucose (2.48%), and all atherogenic indices including cardiac risk ratio (24.30%), Castelli's risk index-2 (45.71%), atherogenic coefficient (42%), and atherogenic index of plasma (25%) compared to control. In addition, the highest dose (1000 mg/kg) caused a significant increase in iron (12.07%) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (8.87%) levels. Histopathological findings of the vital organs did not indicate any pathological changes indicating that pomelo is nontoxic, safe, and serves as an important source of natural antioxidants. In addition, the fruit extract has the potential to ameliorate hepato- and nephrotoxicities and cardiovascular diseases as well as iron deficiency anemia.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31281355 PMCID: PMC6590546 DOI: 10.1155/2019/2529569
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Toxicol ISSN: 1687-8191
Polyphenol, flavonoid, and ascorbic acid contents as well as DPPH radical scavenging activity and FRAP values for pomelo methanolic extract.
| Antioxidant activity | Results |
|---|---|
| Total polyphenols (mg/100 g GAEs) | 515.45 ± 4.62 |
| Total flavonoids (mg/100 g CEQs) | 21.71 ± 0.22 |
| Ascorbic acid (mg/100 g AEs) | 87.25 ± 0.90 |
| DPPH radical scavenging activity (IC50)( | 1.70 ± 0.00 |
| FRAP value ( | 1848.2 ± 5.34 |
Data are presented as mean ± SD, n=3, where GAEs=gallic acid equivalent, CEQs= catechin equivalents, and AEs= ascorbic acid equivalents.
Figure 1The effects of pomelo extract on body weight (g) gain. Results are expressed as mean ± SD. (n=8). Nonsignificant changes were found when all treatment groups were compared against the control group (p< 0.05) as determined using one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison tests.
The effects of different concentrations of methanolic extract of pomelo on the relative organ weight.
| Organs | Control | 250 mg/kg | 500 mg/kg | 1000 mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heart | 0.280 ± 0.01 | 0.278 ± 0.03 | 0.282 ± 0.03 | 0.300 ± 0.01 |
| Kidney | 0.589 ± 0.03 | 0.617 ± 0.01 | 0.645 ± 0.01 | 0.657 ± 0.06 |
| Lung | 0.548 ± 0.08 | 0.552 ± 0.10 | 0.549 ± 0.06 | 0.551 ± 0.13 |
| Liver | 3.060 ± 0.29 | 3.031 ± 0.18 | 3.309 ± 0.11 | 3.00 ± 1.43 |
| Spleen | 0.352 ± 0.05 | 0.368 ± 0.04 | 0.348 ± 0.03 | 0.360 ± 0.22 |
| Caecum | 0.352 ± 0.05 | 0.325 ± 0.45 | 0.347 ± 0.03 | 0.355 ± 0.07 |
| Pancreas | 0.165 ± 0.03 | 0.181 ± 0.10 | 0.162 ± 0.10 | 0.151 ± 0.04 |
| Brain | 0.811 ± 0.08 | 0.775 ± 0.00 | 0.804 ± 0.09 | 0.857 ± 0.15 |
| Testes | 0.072 ± 0.01 | 0.078 ± 0.02 | 0.077 ± 0.01 | 0.080 ± 0.00 |
| Thymus | 0.183 ± 0.01 | 0.139 ± 0.14 | 0.179 ± 0.03 | 0.167 ± 0.05 |
| Caput | 0.356 ± 0.09 | 0.408 ± 0.04 | 0.354 ± 0.03 | 0.346 ± 0.02 |
| CPG | 0.131 ± 0.01 | 0.129 ± 0.01 | 0.126 ± 0.00 | 0.122 ± 0.01 |
| Stomach | 0.620 ± 0.02 | 0.573 ± 0.22 | 0.692 ± 0.05 | 0.675 ± 0.14 |
| Ovary | 0.065 ± 0.02 | 0.067 ± 0.02 | 0.070 ± 0.01 | 0.062 ± 0.00 |
| FT | 0.263 ± 0.00 | 0.290 ± 0.05 | 0.270 ± 0.05 | 0.286 ± 0.05 |
Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n=8).
CPG: Cowper gland and FT: fallopian tube. Nonsignificant changes were found when all treatment groups were compared against the control group (p< 0.05) as determined by using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison tests. Table 2 is reproduced from Sudip Paul et al. (2017) [under the Creative Commons Attribution License/public domain].
The effects of different concentrations of methanolic extract of pomelo on the percentage of water content of different organs.
| Organs | Control | 250 mg/kg | 500 mg/kg | 1000 mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heart | 73.00 ± 2.30 | 72.05 ± 2.08 | 76.68 ± 2.07 | 76.08 ± 1.64 |
| Kidney | 73.47 ± 2.07 | 74.18 ± 3.05 | 72.34 ± 2.50 | 73.03 ± 1.99 |
| Lung | 71.84 ± 3.92 | 74.88 ± 4.30 | 72.55 ± 2.67 | 72.12 ± 3.81 |
| Liver | 65.12 ± 4.00 | 65.13 ± 2.75 | 64.48 ± 3.07 | 64.24 ± 2.66 |
| Spleen | 74.61 ± 3.11 | 75.36 ± 2.79 | 76.92 ± 2.55 | 76.92 ± 1.60 |
| Caecum | 74.60 ± 2.02 | 73.72 ± 2.97 | 74.50 ± 2.92 | 73.80 ± 3.73 |
| Pancreas | 66.23 ± 1.00 | 65.96 ± 1.32 | 66.07 ± 3.53 | 63.83 ± 2.07 |
| Brain | 51.70 ± 3.38 | 54.50 ± 2.85 | 55.23 ± 2.64 | 58.00 ± 2.13 |
| Testes | 76.33 ± 2.62 | 77.84 ± 2.32 | 76.40 ± 1.99 | 75.57 ± 2.16 |
| Thymus | 69.68 ± 2.12 | 74.80 ± 3.01 | 68.88 ± 2.12 | 70.80 ± 1.52 |
| Caput | 72.73 ± 2.53 | 75.84 ± 3.06 | 75.07 ± 1.89 | 74.94 ± 1.54 |
| CPG | 73.60 ± 3.17 | 72.93 ± 2.61 | 76.58 ± 1.66 | 75.76 ± 1.84 |
| Stomach | 76.44 ± 1.38 | 76.14 ± 0.82 | 76.30 ± 1.78 | 76.22 ± 1.63 |
| Ovary | 56.85 ± 2.56 | 55.34 ± 1.53 | 55.23 ± 2.35 | 55.93 ± 1.50 |
| FT | 76.95 ± 1.68 | 77.69 ± 2.58 | 77.13 ± 0.86 | 75.92 ± 1.89 |
Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n=8).
CPG: Cowper gland and FT: fallopian tube. Nonsignificant changes were found when all treatment groups were compared against the control group (p< 0.05) as determined by using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison tests.
The effects of different concentrations methanolic extract of pomelo on the hematological parameters of whole blood.
| Hematological parameters | Control | 250 mg/kg | 500 mg/kg | 1000 mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RBC (10∧6/ | 7.41 ± 0.97 | 7.24 ± 0.48 | 6.56 ± 0.43 | 7.26 ± 1.32 |
| HGB (g/dL) | 14.10 ± 1.83 | 13.86 ± 0.90 | 12.64 ± 0.73 | 13.81 ± 2.52 |
| HCT (%) | 38.98 ± 4.82 | 38.26 ± 2.26 | 35.10 ± 1.82 | 38.90 ± 6.53 |
| MCV (fL) | 52.78 ± 1.19 | 52.88 ± 0.88 | 53.54 ± 1.03 | 53.75 ± 3.32 |
| MCH (pg) | 19.08 ± 0.42 | 19.16 ± 0.47 | 19.28 ± 0.37 | 19.02 ± 0.60 |
| MCHC (g/dL) | 36.13 ± 0.70 | 36.22 ± 0.45 | 36.00 ± 0.35 | 35.45 ± 1.24 |
| RDW-SD (fL) | 32.41 ± 2.81 | 33.14 ± 1.82 | 31.10 ± 1.25 | 34.50 ± 3.92 |
| RDW-CV (%) | 20.98 ± 2.48 | 21.02 ± 1.02 | 19.06 ± 1.23 | 21.40 ± 1.55 |
| WBC (10∧3/ | 4.55 ± 1.32 | 4.48 ± 0.90 | 4.94 ± 1.14 | 4.27 ± 1.70 |
| LYMPH (%) | 2.79 ± 1.08 | 2.83 ± 0.66 | 3.34 ± 0.83 | 2.68 ± 1.20 |
| MONO (%) | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.02 | 0.04 ± 0.01 |
| GRANULOCYTES (%) | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.06 | 0.04 ± 0.06 | 0.03 ± 0.03 |
| PLT (10∧3/ | 4.55 ± 1.32 | 4.48 ± 0.90 | 4.94 ± 1.14 | 4.27 ± 1.70 |
| MPV (fL) | 9.48 ± 0.31 | 9.48 ± 0.34 | 9.40 ± 0.18 | 9.16 ± 0.26 |
| PDW (fL) | 10.85 ± 0.71 | 10.94 ± 0.62 | 10.40 ± 0.31 | 10.30 ± 0.54 |
| PCT (%) | 0.77 ± 0.11 | 0.79 ± 0.04 | 0.78 ± 0.04 | 0.76 ± 0.11 |
| P-LCR (%) | 21.21 ± 2.68 | 21.44 ± 3.11 | 20.18 ± 1.55 | 19.01 ± 2.19 |
Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n=8).
HGB: hemoglobin, HCT: hematocrit, MCV: mean corpuscular volume, MCH: mean corpuscular hemoglobin, MCHC: mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, PLT: platelets, RDW-SD: red cell distribution width-standard deviation, RDW-CV: red cell distribution width-coefficient of variation, PDW-CV: platelets distribution width, MPV: mean platelets volume, P-LCR: platelets larger cell ratio, and PCT: procalcitonin. No significant changes were found when all treatment groups were compared against the control based on a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison tests.
Figure 2The effects of different concentrations of pomelo methanolic extracts on serum hepatic marker enzymes. Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n=8). ∗ denotes the level of significant difference when compared to the control group as determined by a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison tests.
The effects of different concentrations of pomelo methanolic extracts on serum liver markers.
| Biochemical parameters | Control | 250 mg/kg | 500 mg/kg | 1000 mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TB (mg/dl) | 0.15 ± 0.05 | 0.12 ± 0.08 | 0.12 ± 0.05 | 0.17 ± 0.05 |
| TP (g/L) | 55.00 ± 5.2 | 51.00 ± 3.5 | 48.75 ± 5.0 | 52.00 ± 3.6 |
| ALB (g/L) | 31.75 ± 3.5 | 29.25 ± 2.06 | 28.25 ± 2.21 | 29.00 ± 1.82 |
| A/G | 1.36 ± 0.10 | 1.34 ± 0.45 | 1.39 ± 0.13 | 1.34 ± 0.096 |
Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n=8). No significant changes were established when all treatment groups were compared against the control group using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison tests.
The effects of different concentrations of pomelo methanolic extract on serum renal markers.
| Biochemical parameters | Control | 250 mg/kg | 500 mg/kg | 1000 mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creatinine (mmol/L) | 39.75 ± 3.09 | 35.00 ± 5.59 | 37.25 ± 6.34 | 34.00 ± 3.80 |
| Urea (mmol/L) | 5.30 ± 0.54 | 4.47 ± 0.69 | 4.97 ± 1.15 | 4.32 ± 0.61 |
| Uric acid (mmol/L) | 45.50 ± 4.80 | 38.25 ± 10.40 | 35.50 ± 9.00 | 33.25 ± 6.20 |
| Na+ (mmol/L) | 141.00 ± 2.58 | 142.50 ± 4.43 | 142.50 ± 1.20 | 142.50 ± 6.40 |
| K+ (mmol/L) | 4.12 ± 0.15 | 4.20 ± 0.08 | 4.32 ± 0.09 | 4.05 ± 0.25 |
| Ca2+ (mmol/L) | 2.12 ± 0.22 | 2.22 ± 0.28 | 2.30 ± 0.81 | 2.27 ± 0.09 |
| Mg2+(mmol/L) | 0.82 ± 0.12 | 0.82 ± 0.12 | 0.87 ± 0.09 | 0.87 ± 0.05 |
| Cl− (mmol/L) | 101.50 ± 2.60 | 102.25 ± 4.34 | 101.00 ± 1.80 | 102.25 ± 2.98 |
| PO4- (mmol/L) | 2.30 ± 0.29 | 2.40 ± 0.29 | 2.47 ± 0.29 | 2.42 ± 0.09 |
Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n=8).
∗denotes level of significant difference when compared to the control group as determined using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison tests.
Figure 3The effects of different concentrations of pomelo methanolic extracts on lipid profiles. Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n=8). ∗ denotes level of significant difference compared to control group (p< 0.05) as determined by using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison tests.
The effects of different concentrations of pomelo methanolic extracts on atherogenic indices.
| Biochemical parameter | Control | 250 mg/kg | 500 mg/kg | 1000 mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRR | 1.81 ± 0.05 | 1.51 ± 0.05 | 1.49 ± 0.05 | 1.37 ± 0.08 |
| AC | 0.81 ± 0.04 | 0.50 ± 0.05 | 0.49 ± 0.05 | 0.47 ± 0.07 |
| AIP | 0.36 ± 0.01 | 0.29 ± 0.08 | 0.28 ± 0.05 | 0.27 ± 0.05 |
| CRI-2 | 0.35 ± 0.03 | 0.31 ± 0.05 | 0.31 ± 0.05 | 0.19 ± 0.02 |
Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n=8). ∗ denotes level of significant difference when compared to control group (p < 0.05) and it was determined using one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison tests.
Figure 4The effects of pomelo methanolic extract on serum iron profile. Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n=8). ∗ denotes level of significant difference when compared to control group (p < 0.05) as determined by using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison tests.
The effects of different concentrations of pomelo methanolic extracts on pancreatic function.
| Biochemical parameter | Control | 250 mg/kg | 500 mg/kg | 1000 mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amylase (U/L) | 730.5 ± 30.96 | 749.5 ± 51.09 | 740.0 ± 46.56 | 725.0 ± 73.78 |
| Lipase (U/L) | 32.25 ± 3.40 | 30.75 ± 2.36 | 29.75 ± 2.63 | 31.25 ± 2.06 |
Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n=8).
No significant changes were found when all treatment groups compared against control group (p < 0.05) as determined by using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison tests.
Figure 5The effects of different concentrations of pomelo methanolic extracts on blood glucose levels. Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n=8). ∗ denotes level of significant difference when compared to control group (p < 0.05) as determined by using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison tests.
Figure 6Histopathological photomicrographs of control and treatment group (1000 mg/kg) (6100 X magnification, scale bar: 20 μm). No morphological and pathological changes were observed between the control and pomelo extract administered groups, where C=control. Figure 6 is reproduced from Sudip Paul et al. (2017) [under theCreative Commons Attribution License/public domain].