Milon Mondal1,2, Md Monir Hossain2,3, Md Rakib Hasan2, Md Towhidul Islam Tarun2, Md Al Foyjul Islam2, M S K Choudhuri2, Muhammad Torequl Islam4,5, Mohammad S Mubarak6. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University, Gopalganj 8100, Bangladesh. 2. Department of Pharmacy, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka 1342, Bangladesh. 3. Department of Pharmacy, Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University, Tangail 1902, Bangladesh. 4. Laboratory of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam. 5. Faculty of Pharmacy, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam. 6. Department of Chemistry, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan.
Abstract
Mallotus repandus (M. repandus) is traditionally used to treat muscle pain, itching, fever, rheumatic arthritis, and a variety of liver disorders. The aim of the present work was to evaluate the hepatoprotective activity and the antioxidant potential of the ethyl acetate stem extract of M. repandus (ESMR) against d-galactosamine (d-GalN)-induced hepatopathy, along with a possible mechanism of action in rats. In vivo hepatoprotective activity of ESMR was examined using d-galactosamine (d-GalN)-induced hepatotoxicity in Sprague-Dawley rats. For this purpose, levels of serum diagnostic markers, activity of hepatic antioxidant enzymes, and liver histo-architecture were employed to assess the protective efficacy of ESMR. Furthermore, the total phenolic, flavonoid, and tannin contents were quantitated, and the antioxidant capacity of the extract was evaluated using different methods such as 2,2'-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), nitric oxide (NO), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and hydroxyl radical (OH•) scavenging assays. Intraperitoneal d-GalN injection triggered hepatotoxicity, as shown by the noticeable increase in the serum hepatic marker enzymes, bilirubin content, γ-glutamyl transferase (GGT), total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TGs), and malondialdehyde (MDA), whereas glutathione, superoxide dismutase, and catalase levels were significantly lower compared with that of the control. Pretreatment with ESMR reduced the hepatic enzyme levels along with bilirubin, GGT, and MDA compared to the d-GalN-intoxicated group. These results were supported by histopathological studies, where d-galactosamine caused coagulative necrosis, hemorrhage, and inflammation. However, pretreatment with ESMR ameliorated the histo-architectural changes and brought them back to normal. Results also revealed that the total polyphenolic, flavonoid, and tannin content, and total antioxidant capacity of ESMR were 136.30 ± 0.78 mg GAE/g mg, 38.72 ± 0.85 mg QE/g, 75.88 ± 0.54 mg TAE/g, and 123.16 ± 0.24 mg AAE/g, respectively. In addition, ESMR inhibited free radicals with IC50 values of 94.47 ± 0.51, 127.33 ± 0.36, 164.12 ± 0.45, and 254.14 ± 0.35 μg/mL in DPPH, NO, H2O2, and OH• free radical scavenging assays, respectively. These findings highlight the protective role of ESMR against hepatic injury induced by d-GalN, which may be attributed to its higher antioxidant properties, thereby scientifically justifying its traditional use.
Mallotus repandus (M. repandus) is traditionally used to treat muscle pain, itching, fever, rheumatic arthritis, and a variety of liver disorders. The aim of the present work was to evaluate the hepatoprotective activity and the antioxidant potential of the ethyl acetate stem extract of M. repandus (ESMR) against d-galactosamine (d-GalN)-induced hepatopathy, along with a possible mechanism of action in rats. In vivo hepatoprotective activity of ESMR was examined using d-galactosamine (d-GalN)-induced hepatotoxicity in Sprague-Dawley rats. For this purpose, levels of serum diagnostic markers, activity of hepatic antioxidant enzymes, and liver histo-architecture were employed to assess the protective efficacy of ESMR. Furthermore, the total phenolic, flavonoid, and tannin contents were quantitated, and the antioxidant capacity of the extract was evaluated using different methods such as 2,2'-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), nitric oxide (NO), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and hydroxyl radical (OH•) scavenging assays. Intraperitoneal d-GalN injection triggered hepatotoxicity, as shown by the noticeable increase in the serum hepatic marker enzymes, bilirubin content, γ-glutamyl transferase (GGT), total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TGs), and malondialdehyde (MDA), whereas glutathione, superoxide dismutase, and catalase levels were significantly lower compared with that of the control. Pretreatment with ESMR reduced the hepatic enzyme levels along with bilirubin, GGT, and MDA compared to the d-GalN-intoxicated group. These results were supported by histopathological studies, where d-galactosamine caused coagulative necrosis, hemorrhage, and inflammation. However, pretreatment with ESMR ameliorated the histo-architectural changes and brought them back to normal. Results also revealed that the total polyphenolic, flavonoid, and tannin content, and total antioxidant capacity of ESMR were 136.30 ± 0.78 mg GAE/g mg, 38.72 ± 0.85 mg QE/g, 75.88 ± 0.54 mg TAE/g, and 123.16 ± 0.24 mg AAE/g, respectively. In addition, ESMR inhibited free radicals with IC50 values of 94.47 ± 0.51, 127.33 ± 0.36, 164.12 ± 0.45, and 254.14 ± 0.35 μg/mL in DPPH, NO, H2O2, and OH• free radical scavenging assays, respectively. These findings highlight the protective role of ESMR against hepatic injury induced by d-GalN, which may be attributed to its higher antioxidant properties, thereby scientifically justifying its traditional use.
Liver is one of the largest organs in
the human body that regulates
metabolism, secretion, storage, and detoxification in our body in
which the hepatic damage is often linked with alterations of these
functions.[1] Most hepatotoxic chemicals
damage liver cells mainly by inducing lipid peroxidation (LPO) or
by oxidative damage.[2] Hepatotoxicity is
a common disease, which leads to serious consequences ranging from
metabolic disorders to even death.[3] In
this respect, different toxic agents may induce hepatic injury. d-Galactosamine (d-GalN) is a well-known hepatotoxic
agent which induces liver injury with close resemblance to human viral
hepatitis showing necrosis, inflammation, and regeneration.[4] Noxiousness of d-GalN is mostly associated
with the reduction of uridine pools that are linked to inadequate
ribonucleic acid and protein synthesis, thus changing hepatocellular
function.[5] Subsequently, organelle damage
and necrosis of hepatocytes take place. Along this line, research
findings indicated that d-GalN directly triggers mast cells
to release histamine and Kupffer cells to release tumor necrosis factor-alpha,
which potentiates cell death in numerous ways, including elevation
of oxidative stress and inflammatory procedure.[6]Medicinal plants play a vital role in the human health
care system.
Approximately 80% of the total world population largely depends on
traditional medicine, which is mainly based on plant materials. In
this context, Mallotus repandus (Willd.)
Muell.-Arg., belonging to the Euphorbiaceae family, is locally known
as “Gunti”, “Jhante”, or “Bon natai”.
It is a wild species that grows in different regions of Bangladesh,
especially in the Sundarbans, and has been traditionally used in the
treatment of inflammation, liver toxicity, ulcer, and tumor.[7−9] The plant has also been used as antioxidant, antiviral, and as a
uterus muscle stimulant.[10] In addition,
the aqueous stem extract of M. repandus exhibited significant activity against carbon tetrachloride (CCl4)-induced hepatotoxicity in animal models.[8] To the best of our knowledge, very little is known about
the hepatoprotective role of the ethyl acetate stem extract of M. repandus (ESMR) in animals. Accordingly, the present
study was undertaken to evaluate the hepatoprotective role of ESMR
against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity in male Sprague–Dawley
rats with the intention of providing a pharmacological justification
for its use in traditional medicine.
Results
Antioxidant
Constituents
Results from our study show
that the total polyphenol, flavonoids, and tannin in ESMR were 136.30
± 0.78 mg/g GAE (gallic acid equivalent), 38.72 ± 0.85 mg/g
QE (quercetin equivalents), and 75.88 ± 0.54 mg/g TAE (tannic
acid equivalent), respectively. On the other hand, the total antioxidant
capacity of ESMR was 123.16 ± 0.24 mg/g AAE [ascorbic acid (AA)
equivalent].
Radical Scavenging Capacity
The
antioxidant activity
of ESMR was evaluated according to its ability to scavenge free radicals
in different assays. Shown in Table are the results of different radical scavenging activity
of ESMR. In the 2,2′-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical
scavenging assay, results reveal that ESMR displays moderate free
radical scavenging activity with an IC50 value of 94.47
± 0.51 μg/mL, whereas the standard drug AA exhibited an
IC50 value of 36.47 ± 0.60 μg/mL. In the NO
radical scavenging assay, ESMR showed a scavenging activity with an
IC50 value of 127.33 ± 0.36 μg/mL in comparison
with AA (IC50 value 41.74 ± 0.73 μg/mL). Furthermore,
the extract displayed moderate activity with an IC50 value
of 164.12 ± 0.45 μg/mL in the H2O2 radical scavenging assay, where the reference compound, AA, exhibited
an IC50 value of 11.19 ± 0.21 μg/mL. Finally,
our extract displayed an activity with an IC50 value of
254.14 ± 0.35 μg/mL in the OH• scavenging
assay, while AA exerted an activity with an IC50 value
17.53 ± 0.34 μg/mL.
Table 1
IC50 Value
of ESMR in DPPH,
NO, H2O2, and OH• Scavenging
Assaysa
extracts/standard
DPPH [IC50 (μg/mL)]
NO [IC50 (μg/mL)]
H2O2 [IC50 (μg/mL)]
OH• [IC50 (μg/mL)]
AA
36.47 ± 0.60*
41.74 ± 0.73*
11.19 ± 0.21*
17.53 ± 0.34*
ESMR
94.47 ± 0.51#
127.33 ± 0.36#
164.12 ± 0.45#
254.14 ± 0.35#
Values
are the mean ± SD. Values
in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different
(p < 0.05). Experiments were performed in triplicate
(n = 3).
Values
are the mean ± SD. Values
in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different
(p < 0.05). Experiments were performed in triplicate
(n = 3).
Acute
Toxicological Profile
ESMR did not cause any
toxicological effects at the highest dose given to experimental rats
(4000 mg/kg). In addition, there were no signs of general irritation,
restlessness, respiratory problems, coma, or convulsion. Thus, ESMR
is well-tolerated in rats and considered safe even at 4000 mg/kg.
Therefore, 250, 500, and 1000 mg/kg doses of the extract could be
recommended as therapeutic doses in this study.
Effects of
ESMR on Biochemical Parameters in Serum against d-GalN-Induced
Hepatotoxicity
d-GalN-induced
hepatic toxicity caused significant increase in alanine aminotransferase
(ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alkaline phosphatase
(ALP) levels compared to the control group. However, treatment with
ESMR at different doses (250, 500, and 1000 mg/kg body weight) caused
a significant reduction in the elevated levels of these enzymes in
a dose-dependent manner (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01), as depicted in Figure .
Figure 1
Effect of ESMR and silymarin on ALT, AST, and
ALP against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity (values are mean
± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between Group I
and Group II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01 compared
among Group II
to Group VI).
Effect of ESMR and silymarin on ALT, AST, and
ALP against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity (values are mean
± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between Group I
and Group II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01 compared
among Group II
to Group VI).Similarly, the total bilirubin
levels were markedly (p < 0.001) high in d-GalN-induced rats compared with those
of the control group, whereas these levels were significantly reduced
(p < 0.05 and 0.001) in the ESMR-treated group
in a dose-dependent fashion. Additionally, treatment with silymarin
reversed (p < 0.001) the high bilirubin levels
than d-GalN treated rats. Results are presented in Figure .
Figure 2
Effect of ESMR and silymarin
on the total bilirubin level against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity
[Values are mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between
Group I and Group II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01
compared among Groups
II to VI].
Effect of ESMR and silymarin
on the total bilirubin level against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity
[Values are mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between
Group I and Group II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01
compared among Groups
II to VI].Shown in Figure are the effects of ESMR on γ-glutamyl
transferase (GGT) in d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicrats. Administration
of d-GalN drastically increased the level of GGT, whereas
pretreatment
of d-GalN-administered rats with ESMR (500 and 1000 mg/kg)
significantly reduced GGT levels as was also observed with silymarin,
a standard drug used to treat liver injuries.
Figure 3
Effect of ESMR and silymarin
on the GGT level against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity. Values
are mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between Group I
and Group II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01 compared
among Groups
II to VI.
Effect of ESMR and silymarin
on the GGT level against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity. Values
are mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between Group I
and Group II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01 compared
among Groups
II to VI.Results related to the effect
of ESMR on total protein, albumin,
and globulin in d-GalN-induced rats are shown in Figure . No significant
differences were observed in these parameters among different experimental
groups.
Figure 4
Effect of ESMR and silymarin on total protein, albumin, and globulin
levels against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity. Values are
mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between Groups
I and II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01 compared
among Groups II to VI.
Effect of ESMR and silymarin on total protein, albumin, and globulin
levels against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity. Values are
mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between Groups
I and II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01 compared
among Groups II to VI.However, a noticeable
increase in the levels of circulating total
cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
(LDL-C), and very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C) was
observed, whereas the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)
level was significantly lowered by d-GalN injection (p < 0.01). Interestingly, pre-administration of rats
with ESMR led to significant dose-dependent (p <
0.05 and 0.001) amelioration of these abnormalities, as shown in Table .
Table 2
Effect of ESMR on the Lipid Profile
against d-GalN-Induced Hepatotoxicitya
groups
TC
TG
HDL-C
LDL-C
VLDL-C
Group I
74.46 ± 1.22
61.96 ± 0.47
44.01 ± 0.48
18.05 ± 0.53
12.39 ± 0.09
Group II
150.41 ± 2.63##
121.58 ± 1.24##
32.20 ± 0.23##
93.89 ± 0.34##
24.32 ± 0.25##
Group III
80.46 ± 0.89**
70.40 ± 0.43**
43.78 ± 0.50**
22.60 ± 0.47**
14.08 ± 0.08**
Group IV
130.82 ± 1.24**
118.18 ± 0.65
33.61 ± 0.25
73.57 ± 0.35**
23.64 ± 0.13
Group V
120.68 ± 2.19**
98.38 ± 1.10**
34.62 ± 0.44*
66.38 ± 0.56**
19.68 ± 0.22**
Group VI
87.87 ± 1.33**
81.27 ± 0.84**
40.24 ± 0.40**
31.38 ± 0.39**
16.25 ± 0.17**
Values are mean ± SEM, n =
7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between Groups I and II, p values:
* <0.05, ** <0.01 compared among Groups II to VI.
Values are mean ± SEM, n =
7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between Groups I and II, p values:
* <0.05, ** <0.01 compared among Groups II to VI.
Effects of ESMR on Biochemical Parameters
in Liver Homogenate
against d-GalN Induced Hepatotoxicity
Figure illustrates the significant
(p < 0.01) upsurge in the malondialdehyde (MDA)
level as an outcome of cellular LPO in the d-GalN-treated
rats. However, ESMR supplementation meaningfully (p < 0.05 and 0.001) neutralized dose-dependent LPO than the d-GalN control rats. Silymarin had exhibited significant (p < 0.001) reduction of the MDA level.
Figure 5
Effect of ESMR and silymarin
on the liver LPO level against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity
(Values are mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between
Group I and Group II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01
compared among Group II
to Group VI).
Effect of ESMR and silymarin
on the liver LPO level against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity
(Values are mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between
Group I and Group II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01
compared among Group II
to Group VI).The hepatic glutathione (GSH)
level was noticeably smaller in the d-GalN-treated rats (p < 0.01) than that
in the control group. Pre-supplementation with ESMR significantly
(p < 0.01) augmented the GSH-declined level triggered
by a d-GalN injection which was similar to the level of the
standard silymarin group (Figure ).
Figure 6
Effect of ESMR and silymarin on the liver GSH level against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity (Values are mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between Group I and Group II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01 compared among Group II
to Group VI).
Effect of ESMR and silymarin on the liver GSH level against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity (Values are mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between Group I and Group II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01 compared among Group II
to Group VI).The effect of ESMR on the hepatic
antioxidant enzyme superoxide
dismutase (SOD) content is shown in Figure . Pre-administration with ESMR to d-GalN-treated rats significantly (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001) improved this enzyme level, whereas d-GalN treatment markedly decreased (p < 0.001)
this enzyme content compared to the control group. The outcomes of
extract-treated groups were almost comparable to those of the groups
treated with the standard hepatoprotective drug silymarin.
Figure 7
Effect of ESMR
and silymarin on SOD content against d-GalN-induced
hepatotoxicity (Values are mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01
compared between Group I and Group II, p values:
* <0.05, ** <0.01 compared among Group II to Group VI).
Effect of ESMR
and silymarin on SOD content against d-GalN-induced
hepatotoxicity (Values are mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01
compared between Group I and Group II, p values:
* <0.05, ** <0.01 compared among Group II to Group VI).Significantly lower content of the endogenous antioxidant
enzyme
catalese (CAT) was detected in the d-GalN-injected rats (p < 0.01), where ESMR supplementation noticeably (p < 0.05, p < 0.01) augmented the
content of CAT in a dose-dependent manner. In the case of silymarin,
CAT content pointedly (p < 0.01) returned to that
in the normal rats. Results are exhibited in Figure .
Figure 8
Effect of ESMR and silymarin on hepatic antioxidant
enzyme CAT
content against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity (Values are
mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between Group I
and Group II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01 compared
among Group II to Group VI).
Effect of ESMR and silymarin on hepatic antioxidant
enzyme CAT
content against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity (Values are
mean ± SEM, n = 7. p values: # <0.05, ## <0.01 compared between Group I
and Group II, p values: * <0.05, ** <0.01 compared
among Group II to Group VI).
Histopathological Analysis
Histopathological examination
revealed that Group I had a normal arrangement of hepatocytes (Figure A), whereas group
II showed massive coagulative necrosis, hemorrhage, and inflammation
(Figure B). The liver
section of group III animals (100 mg/kg dose of silymarin) showed
preservation in all of the histopathological features (Figure C). Moderate tissue necrosis
and inflammation were observed in group IV, where animals were pretreated
with 250 mg/kg ESMR followed by d-GalN (Figure D). Histoarchitecture of liver
sections of groups V and VI showed an improvement in the pathological
features, in which there was mild inflammation (Figure E,F). All of these findings indicate that
ESMR provides defensive measures if pretreatment was administered
to rats before d-GalN injection.
Figure 9
Histological examination
of liver sections from different groups
[(A) Group I: normal arrangement of hepatocytes. (B) Group II: section
of liver tissue of d-galactosamine-treated group showing
massive coagulative necrosis, hemorrhage, and inflammation. (C) Group
III: section of 100 mg/kg silymarin liver tissue pretreated in the
liver followed by d-galactosamine, showing preservation of
normal hepatocytes. (D) Group IV: section of liver tissue pretreated
with 250 mg/kg ESMR followed by d-galactosamine, showing
tissue necrosis and inflammation. (E) Group V: section of liver tissue
pretreated with 500 mg/kg ESMR followed by d-galactosamine,
showing mild inflammation. (F) Group VI: section of liver tissue pretreated
with 1000 mg/kg ESMR followed by d-galactosamine, showing
normal histology with mild inflammation (100× magnification)].
Histological examination
of liver sections from different groups
[(A) Group I: normal arrangement of hepatocytes. (B) Group II: section
of liver tissue of d-galactosamine-treated group showing
massive coagulative necrosis, hemorrhage, and inflammation. (C) Group
III: section of 100 mg/kg silymarin liver tissue pretreated in the
liver followed by d-galactosamine, showing preservation of
normal hepatocytes. (D) Group IV: section of liver tissue pretreated
with 250 mg/kg ESMR followed by d-galactosamine, showing
tissue necrosis and inflammation. (E) Group V: section of liver tissue
pretreated with 500 mg/kg ESMR followed by d-galactosamine,
showing mild inflammation. (F) Group VI: section of liver tissue pretreated
with 1000 mg/kg ESMR followed by d-galactosamine, showing
normal histology with mild inflammation (100× magnification)].
Discussion
Because the liver controls
numerous important functions in the
body, it can cause serious illness when it becomes diseased or injured.
Liver diseases can result from drugs, poisons, or consumption of lots
of alcohol. Because of lack of dependable hepatoprotective drugs in
contemporary medicine, there is an urgent need for the development
of potent as well as nontoxic hepatoprotective agents for the treatment
of hepatitis.[11] In traditional medicine,
medicinal plants have been used in many parts of the world, especially
in underdeveloped countries, for the treatment of hepatic diseases.
These plants have been recommended for appropriate in vivo pharmacological
evaluation to find good candidates.[12] Moreover,
medicinal herbs which possess anti-inflammatory activity and antioxidant
capacity have become good candidates for investigation to alleviate
tissue damage.[13] In Taiwan, M. repandus has been used as a remedy for hepatitis
and liver cirrhosis,[14] as an antioxidant
against active oxygen species,[15] and as
analgesic and anti-inflammatory drugs.[16] Moreover, the aqueous ESMR showed significant liver protective effects
against (CCl4)-induced hepatotoxicity model.[6] To the best of our knowledge, there were no reports
or studies pertaining to the hepatoprotective effect of ESMR against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity in animals.d-GalN
is a well-known hepatotoxic agent with a mechanism
of action that closely resembles human viral hepatitis.[17]d-GalN produces excessive reactive
free radicals which alter the antioxidant status of certain organs
and make them more susceptible to oxidative stress. Therefore, the
current in vivo investigation could be suitable for evaluation of
hepatoprotective agents.[18] Reactive free
radicals oxidize polyunsaturated fatty acids in cell membranes, leading
to their damage.[19]d-GalN modifies
the redox status that makes certain organs more vulnerable to oxidative
stress.[20]d-GalN injection interrupts
permeability of the hepatic cell membrane, which initiates leakage
of the hepatic enzymes from the cell, leading to elevation in the
levels of enzymes in serum.[21]Enzymes
such as ALT, AST, ALP, LDH, and GGT are important biomarkers
that are directly involved in the hepatic injury and signify the severity
of damage caused by d-GalN. Our findings from this study
showed that administration of d-GalN in rats causes a significant
increase in levels of ALT, AST, ALP, and GGT in serum which is consistent
with earlier findings.[22] These elevated
enzyme levels indicate necrotic and inflammatory disorder in the hepatic
cell.[23] However, pretreatment with ESMR
at doses of 250, 500, and 1000 mg/kg significantly attenuated these
enzyme levels in a dose-dependent manner, which was quite similar
to that seen by the standard hepatoprotective drug, silymarin. On
the other hand, serum total bilirubin is a notable hepatic functional
marker that is associated with hepatic and biliary disorder along
with acute disruption of hepatocellular architecture and function;
higher levels of serum bilirubin are usually found in liver injuries
caused by toxicants.[24] Our findings indicate
that ESMR restored this level to normal. Thus, normal serum hepatic
enzyme levels suggest that ESMR helps to regenerate hepatoparenchymal
cells by its protective action on membrane fragility. Total protein,
albumin, and globulin levels can be employed to evaluate the noxious
effects of toxicants. Results from this study showed no significant
change in the serum albumin level between the test and control groups.
This may be ascribed to the short time period of the experiment.[25]Increased serum TG and TC levels and reduced
levels of HDL-C are
common features of liver damage, which is in agreement with our findings.[26] Our results demonstrated an increase in serum
TC, TG, LDL-C, and VLDL-C levels along with a decrease in the HDL-C
level in d-GalN-injected rats compared to the control; this
is in agreement with the findings of Almajwal and Elsadek.[100] Severe hepatocellular damage accumulates large
amounts of TG in the parenchymal cells, which release a high quantity
of TG in the blood.[27] However, reduction
in levels of serum TG and TC, coupled with an increase in the HDL-C
level in the experimental groups, indicates that ESMR exerts a hepatoprotective
effect against d-GalNtoxicity.LPO is a well-known mechanistic
pathway for oxidative stress and
cell damage.[28]d-Ga1N enhances
oxidative stress by forming unnecessary free radicals and by damaging
macromolecules. Our results showed that intraperitoneal d-Ga1N injection increases the MDA level, a vital parameter of LPO,
which is in agreement with the findings of Najmi et al.[29] MDA is formed through oxidative degradation
of polyunsaturated fatty acids. In addition, peroxidation suppresses
the inbuilt defensive antioxidant system by excessive formation of
reactive free radicals.[30] Results from
this investigation indicated that pretreatment with ESMR lowers the
MDA level (p < 0.001) in the hepatic tissues compared
to the d-GalN group, which supports the protective role of
the extract against oxidative impairment. This hepatoprotective effect
could be ascribed to the presence of bio-active compounds in ESMR
with high radical scavenging activity, which may justify the traditional
depurative activity of this plant against hepatocellular damage.GSH is an important strong antioxidant that protects cells from
oxidative damage, as this enzyme scavenges reactive oxygen species
(ROS) and plays a significant role in defensive processes.[31] A homeostatic decrease in the hepatic GSH level
makes cells more vulnerable to oxidative stress and leads to additional
injury by toxic substances. In this respect, d-GalN injection
reduces the GSH content in experimental rats;[32] however, treatment with ESMR significantly increased the GSH level
and brought it back to normal. Similarly, cellular antioxidant enzymes
(e.g., SOD, CAT) are required for the peroxidation of macromolecules
such as carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, and genetic materials by
removing ROS from the cell. SOD scavenges ROS and converts them into
H2O2 and thus reduces their toxic effects.[33] On the other hand, CAT decomposes these H2O2 molecules to water and molecular oxygen.[34] Toxic substances induce liver damage indicated
by the reduced levels of these enzymes in the rat liver. Our findings
revealed that d-GalN intoxication caused depletion of SOD
and CAT levels. However, supplementation with ESMR increased the levels
of these anti-oxidative enzymes and brought their activities back
to normal.d-GalD produced intensive inflammatory infiltration
with
massive coagulative necrosis and hemorrhage in the hepatic parenchyma
and outlying areas. These observations are consistent with other studies
conducted on d-GalN.[13] Meanwhile,
pretreatment with ESMR and silymarin amended the histological changes
induced by d-GalN. These results are in line with the traditional
use of this plant and its liver protective effect.[8] In addition, results from this study revealed that ESMR
exhibits good radical scavenging activity and exerts anti-oxidative
effect against ROS-mediated oxidative stress.On the other hand,
over production of free radicals such as O2•, NO, and
OH• in addition to H2O2 can
cause cell damage, including damage to cellular constituents and the
cell membrane.[35] Phenolics, flavonoids,
and tannins, largely found in medicinal plants, are outstanding phytoconstituents
that act as potent antioxidants and exhibit hepatoprotective activity.
These compounds inhibit the generation of these free radicals by donating
hydrogen atoms or electrons.[36] Moreover,
polyphenols and flavonoids support increasing endogenous GSH content
by upregulating the expression of glutamylcysteine synthetase.[37] Along this line, it is worth mentioning that
food supplementation with natural antioxidant-containing herbs may
be effective in the fight against potential harmful effects of free
radicals and may be used as a defensive mechanism against these extremely
reactive oxidants. Our study revealed that ESMR is a good source of
natural antioxidants (e.g., phenolics, flavonoids, and tannins) which
scavenge radical species and reduce molecular damage of the cell.
Results from the DPPH, NO, OH•, and H2O2 radical scavenging assays further confirmed the high
natural antioxidant content of ESMR validated by the scavenging capacity
of the extract against free radicals and ROS.[15]In earlier studies, some biochemicals such as mallotinic acid,
furosin, lupeol, amyrin, ursolic acid, and bergenin were identified
as constituents of the M. repandus stem.[39,40] In this context, Rivière et al. found that flavonoids and
phenolic compounds are mainly present in the ethyl acetate extract
and that the ethyl acetate fraction of M. repandus stems exhibited the greatest superoxide-scavenging activity.[41] On the other hand, Tabata and co-workers demonstrated
the antioxidant effects of mallotinic acid, which is a strong free-radical
scavenger and can inhibit ROS-mediated protein degradation of bovineserum albumin.[42] Similarly, furosin exerts
protective effects which reduce glutamate-induced oxidative stress
and inhibit apoptotic cell death.[43] Sunitha
et al. demonstrated the hepatoprotective effect of lupeol against
cadmium-induced toxicity in rats.[44] Lupeol
prevents carcinogen-induced liver injury in animal models where dietary
lupeol supplementation induced Bcl-2 and suppressed Bax and caspase-3
that constrain the toxicant-induced onset of apoptosis. In another
study, oral administration of lupeol provided protection against aflatoxin-induced
per-oxidative damage and reversed elevated hepatic biomarker enzymes
to normal levels.[45] On the other hand,
amyrin reduced oxidative stress and toxic radical species formation
and exhibited a protective effect against hepatic damage,[46] whereas ursolic acid displayed protective effect
against ethanol-induced liver impairment in experimental rats. Additionally,
ursolic acid was able to inhibit the steatosis process induced by
the anti-tubercular drugs and showed a noticeable protective action
against paracetamol and d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity.[47] Findings by Lim and colleagues indicated that
bergenin inhibits LPO and preserves sufficient levels of GSH for the
removal of toxic substances.[48] On the other
hand, Raish et al. recommended that d-GalN showed necrosis
and inflammation in the parenchymal cells and portal track of the
liver.[13] However, pre-administration with
the M. repandus extract attenuated
dose-dependent LPO and downregulated d-GalN-induced inflammation
in hepatic toxicity. Our previous study concluded that the M. repandus stem possesses anti-inflammatory activities.[16]
Conclusions
In summary, findings
from this investigation suggest that ESMR
displays remarkable hepatoprotective effect against d-GalN-induced
hepatotoxicity in experimental rats. These findings may explain the
traditional medicinal use of the M. repandus stem as a hepatoprotective, possibly because of the presence of
bio-active compounds which reduce oxidative stress by scavenging toxic
radicals produced by d-GalN. Our findings also suggest that M. repandus has a cellular protective role against d-GalN-induced hepatotoxicity. However, more detailed studies
are still required to establish the safety, efficacy, and active constituents
of this plant to achieve better outcomes in clinical treatments.
Experimental
Section
Chemicals and Drugs
The following compounds and reagents
used throughout this investigation were purchased from different companies
such as Merck (Germany), Sigma Chemicals, Merck (India), and SD Fine
Chem. Ltd.: Ranbaxy Lab Folin–Ciocalteu reagent, sodium carbonate,
methanol, gallic acid, aluminum chloride, potassium acetate, quercetin,
concentrated H2SO4 (98%), sodium phosphate (Na3PO4), ammonium molybdate, AA, ethyl acetate, tannic
acid, DPPH, sodium nitroprusside, sulfanilamide, naphthyl ethylenediamine
dihydrochloride, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), phosphate
buffer, and phosphoric acid (H3PO4). We obtained
silymarin capsules from Square Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (Dhaka, Bangladesh),
whereas d-galactosamine (d-GalN) was procured from
Atomax Chemicals Co. Ltd., (Shenzhen, China).
Plant Material
Stems of M. repandus (M. repandus) were collected from
Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh, during the dry season between November and
December. The plant was identified and authenticated, and a voucher
specimen was deposited at the Bangladesh National Herbarium (DACB
accession no. 38733).
Extract Preparation
Collected stems
were cleaned and
properly washed under running tap water. They were then partially
dried by fan aeration followed by complete drying in an oven at 40
°C for two days. Approximately, 500 g of the powdered plant material
was subjected to soxhlet extraction at 65 °C using ethyl acetate
(500 mL). Extraction was completed when the solvent running through
the soxhlet apparatus turned colorless. The solution was filtered
using a fresh cotton bed, and the extract was concentrated and dried
by means of rotary evaporation at 40 ± 2 °C to afford a
gummy concentrate of the crude extract. Dried extracts thus obtained
were kept in a Petri dish at 2–8 °C and were screened
for their pharmacological properties.
Determination of Total
Phenol, Flavonoid, Tannin, and Antioxidant
Capacity
Total phenol, flavonoid, and antioxidant capacity
were estimated according to the procedure outlined by Hossain et al.,[49] whereas the total tannin content was assessed
by the method of Folin and Ciocalteu with slight modification.[50] The total content of phenols, flavonoids, antioxidant
capacity, and tannin of ESMR is expressed in mg/g GAE, mg/g QE, mg/g
AA equivalent (AAE), and mg/g TAE, respectively.
Determination
of Free Radical Scavenging Capacity
DPPHfree radical scavenging assay was accomplished according to the method
described by Braca et al.,[51] whereas the
NO scavenging assay was performed following the method of Govindarajan
and co-workers.[52] On the other hand, the
ability of the ESMR to scavenge H2O2 was evaluated
according to the procedure outlined by Nabavi et al.,[53] while the OH• scavenging activity was
assessed as per the method of Halliwell and colleagues.[54] The percentage of radical scavenging capacity
of the extracts and standard compound was calculated from the following
equationwhere Ao is the
absorbance of the control and A1 is the
absorbance in the presence of the sample of the extract and standard;
IC50 was calculated by the linear regression method.
Animals for In Vivo Experiments
Male Sprague–Dawley
rats (150–170 g) and Swiss albino male mice
(25–30 g), obtained from Focused Research on Ayurvedic Medicine
and Education (FRAME) Laboratory, Department of Pharmacy, Jahangirnagar
University, Bangladesh, were used throughout this investigation. These
animals were kept under normal laboratory conditions (temperature:
25 ± 3 °C, humidity: 50 ± 5%, and 12 h light/dark cycles)
and were provided with a standard laboratory pellet diet and water
ad libitum. Experiments were conducted according to the ethical guidelines
approved by the Bangladesh Association for Laboratory Animal Science,
whereas the experimental protocol was approved by the Biosafety, Biosecurity,
and Ethical Committee of Faculty of Biological Sciences of Jahangirnagar
University, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh [approval number: BBECJU/M2013(20)].
Acute Toxicity Study
An acute oral toxicity study was
conducted using the limit test procedure according to the Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines for evaluation
of chemicals (Test Guideline 425).[55] According
to the procedure, Swiss albino mice were randomly
divided into five groups of eight animals each. Different doses (250,
500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 mg/kg) of ESMR were administered by oral
gavage.[17] Then, animals were observed uninterruptedly
for 1 h for any behavioral changes, signs of toxicity, and death,
intermittently for the next 6 h, and then again at 24 h, after dosing
ESMR.
d-GalN-Induced Hepatoprotective Studies
Forty-two
male Sprague–Dawley rats were randomly divided into six groups
of 7 animals each:Group I: treated only with water (orally)
and served as the normal control.Group II: d-GalN-treated
control and received water. This
group served as a negative control.Group III: animals in this
group were treated orally with the standard
drug silymarin at 100 mg/kg body weight, and this group is known as
the standard group.Groups IV–VI: animals in these groups
were orally treated
with ESMR at doses of 250, 500, and 1000 mg/kg body weight and these
were the treatment groups.All these protocols were continued
for 7 days. On the final day
of the treatment, animals of groups II–VI received a single
dose of d-GalN intraperitoneally at 300 mg/kg of rats’
body weight. On the next day, rats from each group were anaesthetized
by administration (i.p.) of ketamine (500 mg/kg). Then, each rat was
placed on a board and pins were driven through its paws, crucifixion-style.
We looped a string over the front teeth to hold the head back and
took shiny thin scissors and cut into the animal’s skin and
right through the ribcage. Inside the ribcage was the dark-red, still-beating
heart where we had to push the blood out while the animal was still
alive. Blood samples (4 mL) were collected for further biochemical
analyses. All analyses were accomplished within 24 h of sample collection.
In addition, liver tissues were instantly removed from the surrounding
tissues, washed with ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline, weighed,
and stored at −20 °C for histopathological examinations.[56]
Assessment of Serum Biochemical Parameters
For assessment
of biochemical parameters related to liver function, serum samples
were analyzed for ALT, AST, ALP, GGT, total protein, albumin, globulin,
total bilirubin, TC, HDL-C, and TG following the standard procedures
with the aid of a Humalyzer 3500 (Human Inc., Steinenbronn, Germany)
and using human commercial kits.[56] Similarly,
VLDL-C and LDL-C concentrations were calculated using the following
Friedewald equations[57]
Assessment of Hepatic Biochemical Parameters
MDA is
known as an indicator of LPO. We determined MDA by following the procedure
outlined by Ohkawa and co-workers.[58] Levels
of MDA were expressed in nmol of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances
per mg of protein. On the other hand, we employed Ellman’s
reagent method for the detection of the GSH level.[59] GSH activity was expressed as nmol/mg of protein. In a
similar fashion, we followed the procedure of the Chatterjee method
to determine the level of SOD.[60] On the
other hand, the activity of catalase (CAT) was accomplished following
the method of Aebi and using hydrogen peroxide as a substrate.[61] Levels of SOD and CAT were expressed as units/mg
of protein.
Histopathological Evaluation
After
sacrificing rats,
livers of the sacrificed rats were immediately removed, sliced, and
washed with saline and fixed at 10% neutral buffered formalin for
histopathological studies. Liver tissues were then trimmed (5 μm
thicknesses) with the aid of a rotary microtome and embedded in paraffin
wax. Afterward, tissue sections were stained with hematoxylin and
eosin for histopathological studies using established protocols and
photographed with an Olympus DP 72 microscope (Tokyo, Japan).[37]
Statistical Analysis
Results from
this investigation
are expressed as the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM).
We employed SPSS (Statistical Packages for Social Science, version
20.0, IBM Corporation, New York, USA) and GraphPad Prism (version
6.02; GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) to analyze data.
Data were subjected to Student’s t-test and
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s multiple
comparison to analyze data sets. Differences between means were considered
significant at p < 0.001 and p < 0.05.