| Literature DB >> 32377229 |
Karim M Raafat1, Sally A El-Zahaby2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fumaria officinalis (F. officinalis, FO) has been used in many inflammatory and painful-ailments. The main aim of this work is to perform an in-depth bio-guided phytochemical investigation of F. officinalis by identifying its main-active ingredients. Optimizing pharmacokinetics via niosomal-preparation will also be done to enhance their in vivo antineuropathic and anti-inflammatory potentials, and to explore their possible-mechanism of actions.Entities:
Keywords: Anti-inflammatory; Antineuropathic; Fumaria officinalis; HPLC-analysis; Niosomes
Year: 2020 PMID: 32377229 PMCID: PMC7195756 DOI: 10.1186/s13020-020-00321-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chin Med ISSN: 1749-8546 Impact factor: 5.455
The composition and characteristics of the tested niosomal formulations
| Code | Compositiona | Weight ratio | EE (%) | Zeta potential (mV) | Z-average (nm) | PDIb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nio1 | S:CH | 1:1 | 91.25 ± 2.80 | − 53.06 ± 2.40 | 90.60 ± 1.90 | 0.30 ± 0.01 |
| Nio2 | S:CH | 2:1 | 94.65 ± 3.33 | − 56.75 ± 2.60 | 96.56 ± 1.87 | 0.34 ± 0.02 |
| Nio3 | S:CH | 3:1 | 92.56 ± 4.21 | − 58.10 ± 3.10 | 97.60 ± 1.55 | 0.36 ± 0.01 |
| Nio4 | S:B | 1:1 | 96.70 ± 2.30 | − 67.80 ± 3.40 | 93.56 ± 2.22 | 0.31 ± 0.01 |
| Nio5 | S:B | 2:1 | 98.22 ± 1.44 | − 65.38 ± 3.20 | 94.66 ± 2.34 | 0.33 ± 0.02 |
| Nio6 | S:B | 3:1 | 93.55 ± 1.99 | − 58.50 ± 3.00 | 98.7 ± 1.22 | 0.36 ± 0.01 |
| Placebo I | S:CH | 3:1 | – | − 25.70 ± 2.45 | 86.66 ± 1.11 | 0.28 ± 0.02 |
| Placebo II | S:B | 3:1 | – | − 24.60 ± 2.68 | 84.99 ± 1.33 | 0.27 ± 0.01 |
aS Span 60, CH cholesterol, B Brij 52
bPDI poly-dispersity index
Protocol of experimental design
| Groups | n | Tested substance(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Acute (6 h) and subchronic (8 days) effect of | |||
| I | 7 | Control | Normal mice: Vehicle [sterile cold saline (0.9%)], PO |
| II | 7 | Diabetic Control | Diabetic mice: Vehicle, PO |
| III | 7 | GB | Diabetic mice: GB 5 mg/kg, PO |
| IV | 7 | Diabetic mice: | |
| V | 7 | Diabetic mice: | |
| VI | 7 | Diabetic mice: | |
| VII | 7 | ARF | Diabetic mice: ARF 15 mg/kg, PO |
| VIII | 7 | ARF | Diabetic mice: ARF 30 mg/kg, PO |
| IX | 7 | ARF | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg, PO |
| X | 7 | Placebo I | Diabetic mice: Placebo I (Nio 3), PO |
| XI | 7 | Nio 1 | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg in Nio 1, PO |
| XII | 7 | Nio 2 | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg in Nio 2, PO |
| XIII | 7 | Nio 3 | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg in Nio 3, PO |
| XIV | 7 | Placebo II | Diabetic mice: Placebo II (Nio 6), PO |
| XV | 7 | Nio 4 | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg in Nio 4, PO |
| XVI | 7 | Nio 5 | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg in Nio 5, PO |
| XVII | 7 | Nio 6 | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg in Nio 6, PO |
| XVIII | 7 | Sty | Diabetic mice: Sty 7.5 mg/kg, PO |
| XIX | 7 | Sty | Diabetic mice: Sty 15 mg/kg, PO |
| XX | 7 | Sty | Diabetic mice: Sty 30 mg/kg, PO |
| XXI | 7 | San | Diabetic mice: San 7.5 mg/kg, PO |
| XXII | 7 | San | Diabetic mice: San 15 mg/kg, PO |
| XXIII | 7 | San | Diabetic mice: San 30 mg/kg, PO |
| B. For longer time (0, 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks) effects on hot plate and tail withdrawal latencies, and von Frey paw withdrawal thresholds | |||
| XXIII | 7 | Control | Normal mice: Vehicle [sterile cold saline (0.9%)], PO |
| XXIV | 7 | Vehicle Control | Diabetic mice: Vehicle, PO |
| XXV | 7 | GB | Diabetic mice: GB 5 mg/kg, PO |
| XXVI | 7 | Diabetic mice: | |
| XXVII | 7 | Diabetic mice: | |
| XXVIII | 7 | Diabetic mice: | |
| XXIX | 7 | ARF | Diabetic mice: ARF 15 mg/kg, PO |
| XXX | 7 | ARF | Diabetic mice: ARF 30 mg/kg, PO |
| XXXI | 7 | ARF | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg, PO |
| XXXII | 7 | Placebo I | Diabetic mice: Placebo I (Nio 3), PO |
| XXXIII | 7 | Nio 1 | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg in Nio 1, PO |
| XXXIV | 7 | Nio 2 | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg in Nio 2, PO |
| XXXV | 7 | Nio 3 | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg in Nio 3, PO |
| XXXVI | 7 | Placebo II | Diabetic mice: Placebo II (Nio 6), PO |
| XXXVII | 7 | Nio 4 | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg in Nio 4, PO |
| XXXVIII | 7 | Nio 5 | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg in Nio 5, PO |
| XXXIX | 7 | Nio 6 | Diabetic mice: ARF 60 mg/kg in Nio 6, PO |
| XXXX | 7 | Sty | Diabetic mice: Sty 7.5 mg/kg, PO |
| XXXXI | 7 | Sty | Diabetic mice: Sty 15 mg/kg, PO |
| XXXXII | 7 | Sty | Diabetic mice: Sty 30 mg/kg, PO |
| XXXXIII | 7 | San | Diabetic mice: San 7.5 mg/kg, PO |
| XXXXIV | 7 | San | Diabetic mice: San 15 mg/kg, PO |
| XXXXXV | 7 | San | Diabetic mice: San 30 mg/kg, PO |
Fig. 1Fumaria officinalis RP-HPLC major peaks: (1) Cheleritrine (9.2%), (2) Hydrastine (10.7%), (3) Bicuculline (11.2%), (4) Protopine (12.3%), (5) Chelidonine (13.2%), (6) Allocryptopine (13.8%), (7) Stylopine (14.3%), and (8) Sanguinarine (15.3%). The mobile phase consisted of ACN (40%) and Triethylamine (60%) and the flow rate was 1 mL/min utilizing DAD detector focusing on 254 and 280 nm
Fig. 2RP-HPLC of the alkaloid rich fraction (ARF) major peaks: (I) Stylopine (48.3%), and (II) Sanguinarine (51.6%). The mobile phase consisted of ACN (40%) and Triethylamine (60%) and the flow rate was 1 mL/min utilizing DAD detector focusing on 254 and 280 nm
Fig. 3The alkaloid rich fraction (ARF) major constituents’ chemical structures: a Stylopine and b Sanguinarine
1H -NMR and 13C- NMR data
| Structure | Position | δC | Position | δH, m, ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stylopinea | 1 | 120.8 | 24 | 5.93, d ( |
| 1′ | 133.2 | 25 | 5.92, d ( | |
| 2 | 53.7 | 26 | 6.54, d ( | |
| 3 | – | 27 | 6.29, d ( | |
| 4 | 58.9 | 28 | 2.72, ddd ( | |
| 5 | 36.1 | 29 | 2.83, ddd ( | |
| 6 | 51.2 | 30 | 4.03, dd ( | |
| 7 | 28.5 | 31 | 2.69, ddd ( | |
| 8 | 127.3 | 32 | 3.04, ddd ( | |
| 9 | 129.8 | 33 | 2.76, dd ( | |
| 10 | 126.3 | 34 | 5.85, d ( | |
| 11 | 108.1 | 35 | 2.78, dd ( | |
| 12 | 145.3 | 36 | 5.92, d ( | |
| 13 | 142.7 | 37 | 6.42, d ( | |
| 14 | 108.0 | 38 | 6.37, d ( | |
| 15 | 147.3 | 39 | 3.89, d ( | |
| 16 | 145.1 | 40 | 3.87, d ( | |
| 17 | 109.5 | |||
| 18 | – | |||
| 19 | 101.4 | |||
| 20 | – | |||
| 21 | – | |||
| 22 | 101.2 | |||
| 23 | – | |||
| Sanguinarinea | 1 | 106.3 | 25 | 33.32, d ( |
| 1′ | 148.7 | 26 | 33.33, d ( | |
| 2 | 132.9 | 27 | 7.65, t ( | |
| 3 | 128.2 | 28 | 7.64, dt ( | |
| 4 | 106.3 | 29 | 8.10, dt ( | |
| 5 | 148.0 | 30 | 8.12, ddd ( | |
| 6 | 126.7 | 31 | 4.19, s | |
| 7 | 126.5 | 32 | 4.18, s | |
| 8 | 128.5 | 33 | 4.19, s | |
| 9 | 138.4 | 34 | 9.71, d ( | |
| 10 | 130.0 | 35 | 6.51, d ( | |
| 11 | 116.7 | 36 | 6.50, d ( | |
| 12 | 144.2 | 37 | 7.03, d ( | |
| 13 | – | 38 | 8.53, ddd ( | |
| 14 | 126.1 | |||
| 15 | 114.8 | |||
| 16 | 147.4 | |||
| 17 | 142.5 | |||
| 18 | – | |||
| 19 | 101.1 | |||
| 20 | – | |||
| 21 | – | |||
| 22 | 101.3 | |||
| 23 | – | |||
| 24 | 46.1 |
aFigure 2
Fig. 4In-vitro release pattern of alkaloid rich fraction (ARF) from different niosomes (mean ± SEM)
Fig. 5Different niosomal formulations before and after 10 h incubation at 37 °C in SIF with bile salts: a Z-average (nm), b PDI, and c Zeta potential (mV). Data represent the mean ± SEM (n = 3). Where SIF is the simulated intestinal fluid and STC is sodium taurocholate. *P value < 0.05 versus time 0
Fig. 6Acute BGL. All doses are in (mg/Kg). a The acute effects of FO, ARF, Sty and San various doses utilizing Glibenclamide 5 mg/Kg (GB) as a positive control. b The acute effects of Nio 1–6 and placebo I and II. Asterisks designate significant results (p < 0.05) when compared to diabetic control (DC). NC designates normal non-diabetic control
Fig. 7Subchronic BGL. All doses are in (mg/Kg). a The subchronic effects of FO, ARF, Sty and San various doses utilizing Glibenclamide 5 mg/Kg (GB) as a positive control. b The subchronic effects of Nio 1–6 and placebo I and II. Asterisks designate significant results (p < 0.05) when compared to diabetic control (DC). NC designates normal non-diabetic control
Fig. 8HbA1c (%) analysis. All doses are in (mg/Kg). a The effects of FO, ARF, Sty and San various doses utilizing Glibenclamide 5 mg/Kg (GB) as a positive control. b The effects of Nio 1–6 and placebo I and II. Asterisks designate significant results (p < 0.05) when compared to diabetic control (DC). NC designates normal non-diabetic control
Fig. 9Serum insulin (µg/L). All doses are in (mg/Kg). a The effects of FO, ARF, Sty and San various doses utilizing Glibenclamide 5 mg/Kg (GB) as a positive control. b The effects of Nio 1–6 and placebo I and II. Asterisks designate significant results (p < 0.05) when compared to diabetic control (DC). NC designates normal non-diabetic control
Fig. 10Thermal hyperalgesia hot plate latency test. All doses are in (mg/Kg). a The effects of FO, ARF, Sty and San highest doses utilizing Tramadol 10 mg/Kg (TRA 10) as a positive control. b The effects of Nio 1–6 and placebo I and II. Asterisks designate significant results (p < 0.05) when compared to diabetic control (DC). NC designates normal non-diabetic control
Fig. 11Thermal hyperalgesia tail withdrawal latency test. All doses are in (mg/Kg). a The effects of FO, ARF, Sty and San highest doses utilizing Tramadol 10 mg/Kg (TRA 10) as a positive control. b The effects of Nio 1–6 and placebo I and II. Asterisks designate significant results (p < 0.05) when compared to diabetic control (DC). NC designates normal non-diabetic control
Fig. 12Mechanical allodynia Von Frey test. All doses are in (mg/Kg). a The effects of FO, ARF, Sty and San highest doses utilizing Tramadol 10 mg/Kg (TRA 10) as a positive control. b The effects of Nio 1–6 and placebo I and II. Asterisks designate significant results (p < 0.05) when compared to diabetic control (DC). NC designates normal non-diabetic control
Alpha-glucosidase and alpha-amylase inhibitory effects
| Group | Dose (mg/kg) | Alpha-amylase inhibition (%) | Alpha-glucosidase inhibition (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FO | 50 | 32.18 ± 1.75a | 49.12 ± 1.05 g |
| FO | 100 | 49.73 ± 1.70b | 51.83 ± 1.00 h |
| FO | 200 | 63.78 ± 1.31c | 71.48 ± 1.01i |
| ARF | 15 | 33.15 ± 1.46d | 54.44 ± 1.06j |
| ARF | 30 | 53.63 ± 1.56e | 56.36 ± 1.03 k |
| ARF | 60 | 69.23 ± 1.43f | 74.33 ± 1.07 l |
Values are shown as mean ± S.E.M. (n = 3).Values with different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05)
S.E.M. mean standard error
In vivo assessment of the antioxidant activities of Fumaria officinalis on CAT levels in serum, alterations in TBARS and reduced GSH (Mean ± S.E.M., n = 7/group)
| Group | Dose (mg/kg) | Catalase level (kU/I) | TBARS Level (nM/100 g) | GSH (µg/mg) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predose | 8th week | Predose | 8th week | Predose | 8th week | ||
| NC | – | 30.77 ± 1.66 | 30.20 ± 1.44 | 0.73 ± 0.02 | 0.75 ± 0.02 | 64.40 ± 1.10 | 64.83 ± 1.50 |
| DC | – | 21.28 ± 1.20 | 19.82 ± 1.48 | 1.15 ± 0.02 | 3.60 ± 0.03 | 57.30 ± 1.70 | 47.72 ± 1.40 |
| GBa | 5 | 21.42 ± 1.11 | 22.17 ± 1.36 | 1.17 ± 0.02 | 1.78 ± 0.04 | 56.70 ± 1.60 | 56.53 ± 1.50 |
| FOa | 50 | 21.66 ± 1.44 | 35.50 ± 1.25* | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 0.58 ± 0.02* | 59.90 ± 1.50 | 64.9 ± 1.50* |
| FOa | 100 | 21.98 ± 1.23 | 37.80 ± 1.43* | 1.02 ± 0.01 | 0.56 ± 0.03* | 59.00 ± 1.60 | 65.11 ± 1.30* |
| FOa | 200 | 21.85 ± 1.55 | 40.50 ± 1.37* | 1.00 ± 0.02 | 0.54 ± 0.04* | 61.58 ± 1.30 | 65.50 ± 1.40* |
| ARFa | 15 | 22.19 ± 1.15 | 38.65 ± 1.55* | 0.97 ± 0.02 | 0.53 ± 0.01* | 60.98 ± 1.40 | 65.55 ± 1.40* |
| ARFa | 30 | 21.28 ± 1.78 | 39.56 ± 1.70* | 1.00 ± 0.02 | 0.45 ± 0.01* | 62.85 ± 1.20 | 66.50 ± 1.10* |
| ARFa | 60 | 22.49 ± 1.57 | 43.65 ± 1.31* | 0.96 ± 0.01 | 0.40 ± 0.02* | 62.11 ± 1.30 | 70.50 ± 1.10* |
| Stya | 7.5 | 21.42 ± 1.25 | 30.50 ± 1.45* | 1.15 ± 0.02 | 0.97 ± 0.03* | 60.60 ± 1.20 | 59.34 ± 1.30* |
| Stya | 15 | 21.29 ± 1.11 | 32.50 ± 1.34* | 1.02 ± 0.02 | 0.95 ± 0.03* | 61.83 ± 1.50 | 59.90 ± 1.40* |
| Stya | 30 | 21.89 ± 1.45 | 33.65 ± 1.05* | 0.97 ± 0.01 | 0.93 ± 0.01* | 60.13 ± 1.70 | 60.11 ± 1.50* |
| Sana | 7.5 | 22.29 ± 1.15 | 31.52 ± 1.13* | 1.00 ± 0.03 | 0.93 ± 0.03* | 59.75 ± 1.60 | 60.22 ± 1.80* |
| Sana | 15 | 21.28 ± 1.18 | 31.59 ± 1.56* | 1.02 ± 0.02 | 0.89 ± 0.02* | 61.74 ± 1.20 | 60.25 ± 1.90* |
| Sana | 30 | 22.51 ± 1.16 | 32.90 ± 1.50* | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 0.85 ± 0.02* | 61.17 ± 1.50 | 61.44 ± 1.70* |
| Nio 1a | 60 | 22.70 ± 1.78 | 37.56 ± 1.77* | 0.92 ± 0.02 | 0.45 ± 0.02* | 59.66 ± 1.40 | 63.22 ± 1.40* |
| Nio 2a | 60 | 22.90 ± 1.34 | 46.25 ± 1.45* | 1.22 ± 0.02 | 0.34 ± 0.02* | 59.77 ± 1.21 | 75.55 ± 1.10* |
| Nio 3a | 60 | 21.97 ± 1.56 | 39.56 ± 1.33* | 0.89 ± 0.01 | 0.46 ± 0.02* | 59.34 ± 1.33 | 65.66 ± 1.10* |
| Nio 4a | 60 | 22.56 ± 1.77 | 33.58 ± 1.45* | 0.94 ± 0.02 | 0.50 ± 0.01* | 59.83 ± 1.54 | 62.99 ± 1.40* |
| Nio 5a | 60 | 22.89 ± 1.44 | 35.65 ± 1.55* | 1.01 ± 0.01 | 0.48 ± 0.02* | 60.13 ± 1.70 | 65.55 ± 1.30* |
| Nio 6a | 60 | 22.48 ± 1.35 | 34.60 ± 1.45* | 0.90 ± 0.01 | 0.56 ± 0.01* | 60.75 ± 1.55 | 63.88 ± 1.40* |
| Placebo Ia | – | 22.45 ± 1.33 | 20.22 ± 1.22 | 1.11 ± 0.01 | 1.30 ± 0.04 | 62.98 ± 1.40 | 60.00 ± 1.30* |
| Placebo IIa | – | 22.56 ± 1.77 | 19.20 ± 1.46 | 1.22 ± 0.02 | 1.45 ± 0.04 | 62.55 ± 1.41 | 59.33 ± 1.20* |
S.E.M. mean standard error
* p < 0.05 significant from the vehicle control animals
aCompared to vehicle control
Fig. 13The effect on acute inflammatory pain. All doses are in (mg/Kg) utilizing Ibuprofen 100 mg/Kg (Ib) as a positive control. Asterisks designate significant results (p < 0.05) when compared to vehicle control (VEH). Normal designates normal non-carrageenan treated control
Fig. 14The anti-inflammatory effects on mouse hind paw edema. All doses were in mg/Kg. The actual edema volume increase was measured relative to that of standard drug ibuprofen 100 mg/kg. Values are presented as mean ± SEM, = 7. “*” denotes significant difference from control value at < 0.05
Determination of the levels of TNF-alpha, IL-6 and IL-10 cytokines
| Vehicle control | FO | ARF | Sty | San | Nio 1 | Nio 2 | Nio 3 | Nio 4 | Nio 5 | Nio 6 | Placebo I | Placebo II | Ib 100 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TNF-alpha | 2024.60 ± 102.40 | 480.90 ± 28.44* | 343.90 ± 39.33* | 1474.22 ± 10.22* | 1388.12 ± 22.11* | 1560.40 ± 40.98* | 122.55 ± 5.54* | 288.53 ± 10.65* | 1780.22 ± 40.98* | 527.70 ± 33.54* | 704.33 ± 37.44* | 2036.40 ± 122.60 | 2029.12 ± 166.87 | 533.5 ± 96.03 |
| 1212.11 ± 84.00 | 438.25 ± 32.70* | 338.88 ± 28.90* | 1426.10 ± 22.50* | 1378.44 ± 24.30* | 1489.48 ± 39.70* | 111.12 ± 8.55* | 254.33 ± 16.55* | 1370.48 ± 39.66* | 607.23 ± 23.70* | 798.12 ± 43.60* | 1236.33 ± 174.55 | 1208.99 ± 155.65 | 91.18 ± 29.36 | |
| 1672.24 ± 60.11 | 3099.34 ± 150.44* | 4636.64 ± 366.43* | 1805.00 ± 18.56* | 1795.33 ± 17.99* | 1750.11 ± 11.74* | 5022.12 ± 125.33* | 4860.22 ± 228.23* | 1740.43 ± 13.77* | 2055.88 ± 100.43* | 1988.88 ± 111.22* | 1588.54 ± 204.68 | 1599.45 ± 258.32 | 114.05 ± 31.44 |
The results are expressed as pg/mg of protein and reported as the mean ± SEM. * p < 0.05