| Literature DB >> 32379591 |
Dao Ngoc Hien Tam1, Nguyen Hai Nam2, Mohamed Tamer Elhady3, Linh Tran4, Osama Gamal Hassan5, Mohamed Sadik6, Phan Thi My Tien7, Ghada Amr Elshafei8, Nguyen Tien Huy9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mulberry, including several species belonging to genus Morus, has been widely used as a traditional medicine for a long time. Extracts and active components of mulberry have many positive neurological and biological effects and can become potential candidates in the search for new drugs for neurological disorders.Entities:
Keywords: Morus; Mulberry; antidepression; memory improvement; neurology; systematic review
Year: 2021 PMID: 32379591 PMCID: PMC8033976 DOI: 10.2174/1570159X18666200507081531
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Neuropharmacol ISSN: 1570-159X Impact factor: 7.363
Fig. (2)Mechanism of positive effects of Morusalba fruit in brain functions Bcl-2: B-cell lymphoma 2, CREB: cyclic AMP response element-binding protein, ERK: extracellular-signal-regulated kinase, GSK: glycogen synthase kinase-3β, ROS: reactive oxygen species. (A higher resolution / colour version of this figure is available in the electronic copy of the article).
PRISMA checklist.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Title | Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. | 1 |
| Structured summary | Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. | 1 |
| Rationale | Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. | 1-2 |
| Objectives | Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed concerning participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). | 2 |
| Protocol and | Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed ( | 2 |
| Eligibility criteria | Specify study characteristics ( | 2 |
| Information sources | Describe all information sources ( | 2 |
| Search | Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. | 2 |
| Study selection | State the process for selecting studies ( | 2 |
| Data collection process | Describe the method of data extraction from reports ( | 2 |
| Data items | List and define all variables for which data were sought ( | 2 |
| Risk of bias in | Describe methods used for assessing the risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. | 2 |
| Summary measures | State the principal summary measures ( | 2 |
| Synthesis of results | Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency ( | NA |
| Risk of bias across studies | Specify any assessment of the risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence ( | N/A |
| Additional analyses | Describe methods of additional analyses ( | NA |
| Study selection | Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. | 5 |
| Study characteristics | For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted ( | 5 |
| Risk of bias within studies | Present data on the risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome-level assessment (see item 12). | 5 |
| Results of individual studies | For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. | 5-22 |
| Synthesis of results | Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. | NA |
| Risk of bias across studies | Present results of any assessment of the risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). | NA |
| Additional analysis | Give results of additional analyses, if done ( | NA |
| Summary of | Summarize the main findings, including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups ( | 22-23 |
| Limitations | Discuss limitations at study and outcome level ( | 23 |
| Conclusions | Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and | 24 |
| Funding | Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support | 25 |
Detailed search strategy for nine database searches.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PubMed | (mulberry OR Morus) AND (neurotoxicity OR neurotoxic OR Neuroprotection OR neuroinflammation OR neurodegenerative OR Alzheimer OR Parkinson OR dementia OR Neuroprotective OR neurodegeneration OR Huntington OR memory OR cognitive OR cognition OR learning OR perception OR intelligence OR brain OR CNS OR (central nervous system) | 118 |
| 2 | Scopus | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (mulberry OR Morus) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (neurotoxicity OR neurotoxic OR Neuroprotection OR neuroinflammation OR neurodegenerative OR Alzheimer OR Parkinson OR dementia OR Neuroprotective OR neurodegeneration OR Huntington OR memory OR cognitive OR cognition OR learning OR perception OR intelligence OR brain OR CNS OR (central nervous system) | 203 |
| 3 | ISI (WOS) | (mulberry OR Morus) AND (neurotoxicity OR neurotoxic OR Neuroprotection OR neuroinflammation OR neurodegenerative OR Alzheimer OR Parkinson OR dementia OR Neuroprotective OR neurodegeneration OR Huntington OR memory OR cognitive OR cognition OR learning OR perception OR intelligence OR brain OR CNS OR (central nervous system) | 610 |
| 4 | WHO GHL | (mulberry OR Morus) AND (neurotoxicity OR neurotoxic OR Neuroprotection OR neuroinflammation OR neurodegenerative OR Alzheimer OR Parkinson OR dementia OR Neuroprotective OR neurodegeneration OR Huntington OR memory OR cognitive OR cognition OR learning OR perception OR intelligence OR brain OR CNS OR (central nervous system) | 97 |
| 5 | VHL | (mulberry OR Morus) AND (neurotoxicity OR neurotoxic OR Neuroprotection OR neuroinflammation OR neurodegenerative OR Alzheimer OR Parkinson OR dementia OR Neuroprotective OR neurodegeneration OR Huntington OR memory OR cognitive OR cognition OR learning OR perception OR intelligence OR brain OR CNS OR (central nervous system) | 93 |
| 6 | POPLINE | (mulberry OR Morus) AND (neurotoxicity OR neurotoxic OR Neuroprotection OR neuroinflammation OR neurodegenerative OR Alzheimer OR Parkinson OR dementia OR Neuroprotective OR neurodegeneration OR Huntington OR memory OR cognitive OR cognition OR learning OR perception OR intelligence OR brain OR CNS OR (central nervous system) | 0 |
| 7 | SIGLE | (mulberry OR Morus) AND (neurotoxicity OR neurotoxic OR Neuroprotection OR neuroinflammation OR neurodegenerative OR Alzheimer OR Parkinson OR dementia OR Neuroprotective OR neurodegeneration OR Huntington OR memory OR cognitive OR cognition OR learning OR perception OR intelligence OR brain OR CNS OR (central nervous system) | 1 |
| 8 | Google Scholar | (1) with all of the words: mulberry | 44 |
| (2) with all of the words: Morus | 21 | ||
| 9 | NYAM | (1) Mulberry | 0 |
Baseline characteristics of included studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Methanol | 100 - 300 mg/kg | N/A | Haloperidol-induced oxidative stress in mice | Antidopaminergic effect | Behavioral testing | ||||||||||||||||||
| 70% ethanol | 200; 400; 800 mg/kg | N/A | Mice infected with | Antioxidant effect | Biochemical analysis | ||||||||||||||||||
| 70% acetone | 100 μg/mL/kg | N/A | Glyphosate-induced toxicity in brain mice | Antioxidant effect | Biochemical analysis | ||||||||||||||||||
| NA | 100 and 300mg/kg | N/A | Healthy rats | Anti-oxidant effect | Biochemical analysis | ||||||||||||||||||
| NA | 100 - 300 mg/kg | N/A | Healthy rats | Antioxidant effect | Oxygen radical formation | ||||||||||||||||||
| 85% Methanol | 1, 10, 50 mg/ml | N/A | MCAO mice | Protection against ischemia | Infarct volume measurement | ||||||||||||||||||
| Alcoholic | 100, 200, 400 mg/kg | N/A | Healthy rats | Improve cognitive function | Morris water maze test | ||||||||||||||||||
| methanol | 25, 50, 100 mg/kg | Ondansetron | Scopolamine-induced cognitive deficits mice | Improve cognitive function | Elevated plus maze | ||||||||||||||||||
| NA | 100, 200, 500 or 1000 mg/kg | Desipramine, diazepam | Healthy mice | Antidepressant- without an anxiolytic-like effect | The chronic forced swimming test | ||||||||||||||||||
| Methanol | 50, 100, 200 mg/kg | Diazepam | Healthy mice | Anxiolytic effect | Hole-Board Test | ||||||||||||||||||
| 85% Methanol | 200 or 400 mg/kg | Diazepam | Healthy mice | Anxiolytic effect | Elevated plus maze test | ||||||||||||||||||
| Methanol | 50, 100, 200 mg/kg | N/A | Catalepsy model | Anti-dopaminergic effect | Footshock-induced | ||||||||||||||||||
| NA | 10 mg/kg and 100 mg/kg | N/A | Healthy mice | Recovery from the central nervous system complications of diabetes mellitus. | New cell formation | ||||||||||||||||||
| Methanol | 25, 50 and 100mg/kg | Diazepam | Mice suffered chronic restraint stress | Anti-stress | Passive shock | ||||||||||||||||||
| Methanol | 25, 50, 100 mg/kg | Diazepam | Healthy mice | Adaptogenic activity Anti-stress activity | Elevated plus maze | ||||||||||||||||||
| NA | 50, 100, and 200 mg/kg | RU486 (mifepristone) | Healthy mice | Antidepressant-like effects | Forced swim test | ||||||||||||||||||
| NA | 30 and 100 mg/kg | RU486 (mifepristone) | Healthy mice | Antidepressant-like effects | Forced swim test | ||||||||||||||||||
| NA | 10 g/kg | N/A | Diabetes mice | Antidepressant-like effects | Forced swim test | ||||||||||||||||||
| NA | 2, 10, 50 mg/kg | Donepezil | Cholinotoxin-induced cognitive decline in mice | Improve cognitive function | Morris water maze | ||||||||||||||||||
| Ethyl alcohol | 2, 10, 50 mg/kg | Vitamin C, Donepezil | MCAO mice | Improve cognitive function | Morris water maze | ||||||||||||||||||
| NA | 2, 10, 50 mg/kg | Vitamin C | MCAO mice | Improve cognitive function | Morris water maze | ||||||||||||||||||
| NA | 2, 10, 50 mg/kg | Vitamin C, Donepezil | Alcoholic mice | Improve cognitive function | Morris water maze | ||||||||||||||||||
| Ethyl alcohol | 2, 10, 50 mg/kg | Donepezil | MCAO mice | Improve cognitive function | Morris water maze | ||||||||||||||||||
| Ethanol | 20, 100, 500 mg/kg | Donepezil | Healthy mice | Improve cognitive function | Object recognition test | ||||||||||||||||||
| Ethanol | 0.1, 1, 10, 100 microgram/ml | N/A | Alzheimer disease-like models | Improve cognitive function | Novel object | ||||||||||||||||||
| 70% ethanol | 250 mg/kg | N/A | Parkinson disease model | Protection against PD-like symptoms | Olfactory test | ||||||||||||||||||
| 70% ethanol | 500 mg/kg | N/A | Parkinson disease model | Protection against PD-like symptoms | Behavioral test | ||||||||||||||||||
| Not reported | Not reported | N/A | Healthy mice | MAO activity modulation | Biochemical analysis | ||||||||||||||||||
| Methanol | 100, 200, 250, 500 mg/kg | Diazepam | Healthy mice | Sedative effect | Open field test | ||||||||||||||||||
| Ethanol | 0.2, 0.5, 1 g/kg/day | N/A | Obese mice | Improve cognitive function | Novel object recognition test | ||||||||||||||||||
| Methanol | 50, 100 mg/kg | N/A | ᴅ-galactose-induced aging mice | Improve cognitive function | Morris water maze | ||||||||||||||||||
| Hot water | 3–100 mg/kg | Fluoxetine | Healthy mice | Antidepressant-like effects | Forced swim test | ||||||||||||||||||
| Syringic acid | 0.1 – 10 mg/kg | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Methanol | NA | N/A | Aging mice | Improve cognitive function | Avoidance response tests. | ||||||||||||||||||
| NA | 20 mg/kg | Resveratrol | Streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats | Antioxidant effect | Physicochemical analysis | ||||||||||||||||||
| Not reported | 5, 10 mg/kg | N/A | Penicillin-induced epileptiform mice | Anti-epileptic activity | Electrocorticogram records | ||||||||||||||||||
| Methanol | 200 mg/kg | N/A | Healthy mice | Sedative effect | Spontaneous activity | ||||||||||||||||||
| Mulberry variety AR-14 leaves | NA | 100 mg/kg p.o. | Resveratrol | MCAO mice | Protection against focal cerebral ischemia | Neurobehavioral test | |||||||||||||||||
| Nine varieties of | Water | 100 mg/kg | N/A | Rotenone- induced oxidative stress | Antioxidant effect | Biochemical analysis | |||||||||||||||||
| Ethanol | 300 mg /Kg | Donepezil | Alzheimer induced rats | Neuroprotection against Alzheimer disease | 8-OHdG/2-dG ratio | ||||||||||||||||||
| Petroleum, ether, chloroform, methanol | 200 and 400 mg/kg | N/A | Healthy mice | Sedative effect | Locomotor activity | ||||||||||||||||||
| Mulberrofuran G the root bark of | NA | 0.2, 1, and 5 mg/kg | N/A | MCAO mice | Protection against ischemia | Infarct volume measurement | |||||||||||||||||
| Cyanidin-3-O-beta-ᴅ-glucopyranoside from | 1% HCl–MeOH | 10, 20, 30 µg/ml | N/A | MCAO mice | Protection against ischemia | Infarct volume measurement | |||||||||||||||||
| Oxyresveratrol from mulberry wood | NA | 2, 10, 20 and 30 mg/kg | N/A | MCAO mice | Protection against ischemia | Infarct volume measurement | |||||||||||||||||
| Sanggenon G isolated from the root bark of | Ethyl acetate | 5, 10 and | Yohimbine | Healthy mice | Antidepressant-like effects | Forced swim test | |||||||||||||||||
| Sanggenon G isolated from the root bark of | Ethyl acetate | 30 mg/kg | Imipramine | Healthy mice | Antidepressant-like effects | Forced swim test | |||||||||||||||||
| Morusin from | NA | 5, 10 mg/kg | Diazepam | Healthy mice | Sedative effect | Convulsion model | |||||||||||||||||
| Mulberry flavonoid from | NA | 0.3 g/kg | Methycobal | Alloxan-induced diabetic rats | Recovery of peripheral nerve injury in | Histopathological examination | |||||||||||||||||
MCAO: Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion, N/A: Not applied.
Quality assessment of included studies by using SYRCLE tool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sequence | Baseline characteristics | Allocation concealment | Random housing | Blinding | Random outcome assessment | Blinding | Incomplete outcome data | Selective outcome reporting | Other | ||
| + | + | + | + | - | + | - | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | ? | ? | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | - | + | + | ? | + | + | ? | - | - | High risk | |
| + | - | + | - | + | + | + | - | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | ? | + | + | ? | ? | ? | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | - | + | + | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | - | + | + | - | + | + | + | + | - | High risk | |
| + | - | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | - | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | + | ? | + | ? | + | + | + | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | - | ? | + | ? | + | + | + | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ? | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | - | + | + | ? | + | + | ? | - | - | High risk | |
| + | - | + | ? | + | - | + | + | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | ? | + | + | ? | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | ? | + | + | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | ? | + | + | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ? | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ? | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | ? | + | + | ? | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | - | ? | - | + | - | - | - | - | Low risk | |
| + | - | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | + | High risk | |
| + | - | + | + | + | + | + | ? | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | - | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ? | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | - | + | ? | + | + | + | + | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | - | + | + | - | - | - | High risk | |
| + | - | + | + | + | + | + | ? | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ? | - | - | High risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ? | - | ? | High risk | |
| + | - | ? | + | - | + | + | - | - | - | Low risk | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ? | - | ? | High risk | |
+: high risk. -: low risk. ?: unclear.
chromatography column, and finally the residual resin was extracted with chloroform (yield = 0.34% of the wood weight). Finally, MG (a prenylated flavonoid) was isolated from the methanol extract of dried root bark of M. bombycis [39]. The purified process involved in varied solvents including n-hexane, chloroform, and ethyl acetate, then fractionalized by methanol via a chromatography column. Detail of constituents of the extracts in this review is presented in Table 5.
Phytochemical analysis in studied extracts.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Leaves | Methanol | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||
| [ | Leaves | Methanol/ | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||
| [ | Leaves | Petroleum ether | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||
| [ | Leaves | Chloroform | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||
| [ | Root | Methanol/ | + | + | + | |||||||||||
| [ | Fruit | N/A | + | + | ||||||||||||
| [ | Fruit | Ethanol | + | + | + | |||||||||||
| [ | Leaves | Hot water | + | |||||||||||||
| [ | Leaves | Methanol | + | |||||||||||||
| [ | Leaves | Methanol | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||
| [ | Leaves | Chloroform | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||
| [ | Leaves | Petroleum ether | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||
| [ | Fruit | N/A | + | + | ||||||||||||
Alk: alkaloids, Antho: anthocyanins, Anthra: anthraquinones, EASF: ethyl acetate soluble fraction, Fla: flavonoids, Gly: glycosides, N/A: Not applied, Phe: phenolics, Sap: saponins, Ster: steroids, Tan: tannins, Terp: terpenoids.
Antioxidant effect of Morus on brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaves | Methanol | 100-300 mg/kg/day (p.o) | N/A | Male Wistar strain rats, 170–220g | Haloperidol-induced oxidative stress | 21 days | ↑ CAT and SOD levels | ||||||
| Leaves | Methanol | 100-300 mg/kg/day (p.o) | N/A | Male Sprague Dawley, 160±10g | Healthy rats | 6 weeks | ↓ BORs levels by 25.1%, IORs levels by 16.5%, LPO levels by 18.1% and OP levels by 14.2%. | ||||||
| Leaves | Methanol | 100-300 mg/kg/day (p.o) | N/A | Male Sprague Dawley, 260±20g | Healthy rats | 6 weeks | ↓ Hydroxyl radical by 21.1%, superoxide radical by 12%, LPO by 12.26%, and OP levels by 13.77%. | ||||||
| Leaves | Methanol | 200, 400, 800 mg/kg/day (p.o) | N/A | 9-11 weeks male Swiss albino mice | Mice infected with | 10 days | ↑GSH and CAT levels in normal and infected mice in a dose-dependent manner. | ||||||
| leaves | Cold acetone | 100 μg/kg/day (i.p) | N/A | Female Wistar rats, 180–240g | Glyphosate-induced toxicity in brain mice | 15 days | ↓ LDH activity, PC and MDA levels | ||||||
| root | methanol | 25, 50 and 100mg/kg/day (p.o) | Diazepam | Male Wistar rats, 150–180g | Chronic restraint stress | 10 days | ↑ CAT, GSH, SOD level | ||||||
| fruits | Ethanol | 2, 10 and 50 mg/kg/day (p.o) | Donepezil | 8 weeks male Wistar rats, 300–350g | Vascular dementia | 28 days | ↓MDA level and ↑ SOD and GSH-Px activity. | ||||||
| fruits | N/A | 2, 10 and 50 mg/kg/day (p.o) | Donepezil | Male Wistar rats, 180-200g | Cholinotoxin-induced cognitive decline in mice | 2 weeks | ↓MDA level | ||||||
| leaves | methanol | 50,100 mg/kg/day (p.o) | N/A | 8 weeks male BALB/c mice | ᴅ-galactose-induced aging mice | 5 days | ↓ MDA levels, and ↑SOD, GPx and CAT activities | ||||||
| leaves | Water | 3, 10, 30, 100 mg/kg/day (p.o) | Fluoxetine | Male Swiss mice, 30-40g | Healthy mice | Acute: 1 day | Acute and chronic treatment did not change the levels of TBARS, NPHS levels. | ||||||
| Syringic acid from | N/A | N/A | 0.1, 1, 10, 100 mg/kg/day (p.o) | ↑ TBARS in the brain | |||||||||
| Fruit | Ethanol | 300 mg/kg/day (p.o) | Donepezil | Male Albino rats, 180-200 g | Alzheimer induced rats | 6 weeks | ↑109.54 – 118.09% of LPO levels and 55.17 – 54.6% of GSH levels compared with AD-induced mice | ||||||
| Wine made from | fruit | N/A | 20 mg/kg/day (p.o) | Resveratrol | 8 weeks male Wistar rats, 200g | Streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats | 6 weeks | No insignificant change of antioxidant capacity in the brain of diabetic rats | |||||
| fruit | Methanol | 100; 500 mg/kg/day (p.o) | N/A | 6 months male SAMR1 and SAMP8 mice | Senescence-accelerated mice | 12 weeks | ↑ GST and CAT levels at 100 mg/kg, and further GPx level at 500 mg/kg | ||||||
| Nine varieties of | leaves | Water | 100 mg/kg/day (p.o) | N/A | Male Sprague Dawley rats, 200±10g | Rotenone- induced oxidative stress | 1 hours (pretreatment) | ↓ MDA levels by 50.49% and 41.36% when treating with S-146 and BR-2 extract, respectively | |||||
BOR: basal oxygen radical, CAT: catalase, GPx: glutathione peroxidase, GRd: glutathione reductase, GSH: glutathione, GST: glutathione S-transferase, IOR: Induced oxygen radical, i.p.: intraperitoneal injection, LDH: lactate dehydrogenase, LPO: lipid peroxide, MDA: malonyldialdehyde, N/A: not applied, NPHS: non-protein sulfhydryls, NO: Nitrite, PC: Protein carbonyl, p.o: per oral, TAC: total antioxidant capacity, TBARS: thiobarbituric acid reactive substance. *weight of extract per body weight of the animal.
The activities of mulberry on learning and memory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fruit | N/A | 2,10, 50 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 2 weeks | Donepezil | Male Wistar rats, 180-200g | MMT (4 days) | ↓ Escape latency time at all doses | Enhancing memory in ageing mice. | ||||||||||
| Fruits | N/A | 2,10, 50 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 2 weeks | Vitamin C Donepezil | 8 weeks male Wistar rats, 180-220g | MMT (14 days) | ↓ Escape latency at all doses in single-dose administration and on days 7, 14 | Enhance spatial memory in alcoholic mice. | ||||||||||
| Fruit | N/A | 2, 10, 50 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 2 weeks | Vitamin C | 8 weeks Male Wistar rats, 300-350g | MMT (14 days) | ↓ Escape latency time at 2, 10 mg/kg in a healthy condition in a single dose and after 7 days. No changes in retention time. | Protect against memory impairment in MCAO mice and improve neuron density in the hippocampus. | ||||||||||
| Fruits | Ethanol | 2,10 and 50 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 28 days | Vitamin C Donepezil | 8 weeks male Wistar rats, 300-350g | MMT (21 days) | ↓ Escape latency time at 50 mg/ kg in single-dose administration in healthy/stroke condition 7 days after stroke | Enhance cognitive functions in the MCAO rats. | ||||||||||
| Fruit | Ethanol | 2, 10, 50 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 28 days | Donepezil | 8 weeks male Wistar rats, 300-350g | MMT (21 days) | ↓ Escape latency time at 5 and 10 mg/kg after 21 days. | Enhance memory of MCAO mice | ||||||||||
| Fruit | Ethanol | 20, 100 and 500 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 7 days | N/A | 6 weeks male ICR mice, 25–28 g | PAT | ↑ Retention time at 100 and 500 mg/kg | Enhance memory | ||||||||||
| ORT | ↑ Recognition time at 100 and 500 mg/kg | ||||||||||||||||
| Fruit | 70% Ethanol | 20, 100, and 500 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 14 days | N/A | 6 weeks male ICR mice, 25–28 g | NORT | ↑ Novel object recognition index in a dose-dependent manner | Protect cognitive function and survival neurons in Alzheimer disease-like models. | ||||||||||
| Y-maze test (14 days) | ↑ Spontaneous alteration | ||||||||||||||||
| Leaves | Ethanol | 100, 200, 400 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 1 month | N/A | Male Wistar rats, 250 g | MMT (4 days) | ↓ Time to find the hidden platform at all doses in the learning stage | Improve the learning process at all dose | ||||||||||
| Leaves and fruits | 70% Ethanol | 1 g/kg/day (p.o) x 12 weeks | N/A | 4 weeks male C57BL/6 mice, 23-25 g | NORT | ↑ Memory index by 78.63% | Recover memory function in obese mice. | ||||||||||
| Root | Methanol/ | 25, 50 and 100 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 21 days | Diazepam | Male Wistar rats, 150-180g | EPM (21 days) | ↓ Transfer latency on days 7, 10, 21 at all doses | Recover | ||||||||||
| Root | Methanol/ | 25, 50 and 100 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 10 days | Diazepam | Male Wistar rats, 150-180g | EPM (5 and 10 days) | ↓ Transfer latency on days 5, 10 at all doses | Recover cognitive function in mice suffering chronic restraint stress | ||||||||||
| Leaves | Methanol/ | 25, 50 and 100 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 9 days | Ondansetron | Male Swiss albino mice, 22 - 25 g and male Wistar rats, 120-150 g | ORT | ↑ Discrimination index | Improve learning and memory in scopolamine-induced cognitive deficits mice | ||||||||||
| EPM (4 days) | ↓ Transfer latency | ||||||||||||||||
| MMT (4 days) | ↑Swimming time in the target quadrant | ||||||||||||||||
| Fruit | Methanol | 100, 500 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 12 weeks | N/A | 6 months male SAMR1 and SAMP8 mice | PAT (7 days) | ↑ Latency time on days 3, 7 at 500 mg/kg | Improve memory in aging mice | ||||||||||
| AAT (7 days) | ↑ Latency time on days 2, 3, 4 at all doses | ||||||||||||||||
| Leaves | Methanol | 50, 100 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 8 weeks | N/A | 8 weeks male BALB/c mice | MMT (4 days) | ↓ Time for escape | Improve cognitive deficits in aging mice induce by ᴅ-galactose. | ||||||||||
AAT: Active avoidance test, EPM: Elevated plus maze, MCAO: Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion, MMT: Moris Maze Test, N/A: Not applied, NORT: Novel object recognition test, OTR: Object recognition test, PAT: Passive avoidance test, p.o: per oral. *weight of extract per body weight of the animal.
Anti-depression, anxiolytic, anti-stress effects of mulberry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Conclusion | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Root bark | N/A | 10 g/kg twice daily (p.o) x 4 weeks | N/A | 2 months male Sprague-Dawley rats | OFT | ↑ Number of rearing | Reserve depressant behaviors in diabetes mice | |||||||||||||||||
| LAT | ↑ Locomotor activity insignificantly | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| FST | ↓Immobility time | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Root bark | Ethanol | 50, 100, 200 mg/kg/day (p.o) (p.o) x 5 days | RU486 (mifepristone) | Male Wistar rats, 180–220g | FST | ↓Immobility time at 100 and 200 mg/kg | Antidepressant-like effects | |||||||||||||||||
| TST | ↓Immobility time at 100 mg/kg | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Root bark | Methanol/ | 30, 100 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 7 days | RU486 (mifepristone) | 8 weeks Male Wistar rats, 180–210g | FST | ↓Immobility time, ↑climbing time, ↑swimming time at 100 mg/kg of EtOAc fraction | Antidepressant-like effects | |||||||||||||||||
| Root | Methanol/ | 25, 50, 100 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 10 days | Diazepam | Male Wistar rats, 150-180g | OFT | ↑ Number of squares crossed at all doses on day 10 | Anxiolytic effect | |||||||||||||||||
| Root | Methanol | 25, 50, 100 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 28 days | Diazepam | Male Wistar rats, 150-180g | DST (21 days) | ↓ Immobility time at day 1, 14, 21 | Antidepressant-like effects | |||||||||||||||||
| Stem bark | Methanol | 250, 500 mg/kg/day (p.o) | Diazepam | 4 weeks male and female Swiss albino | OFT | ↓ Number of movement at all dose after 120 minutes of administration | Sedative effect | |||||||||||||||||
| HCT | ↓ Locomotor activity at high dose | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Leaves | Methanol | 50, 100, 200, 400 mg/kg (p.o) | Diazepam | 5 weeks male ICR mice, 23–25 g | LAT | No alternation in locomotor activities or rearing frequencies after 1 hour of administration | Anxiolytic effect | |||||||||||||||||
| EPM | ↑ Time spent in the open arms after 1 hour of administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| HBT | ↑ Head-dips at doses of | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Leaves | Petroleum ether, | 200 and 400 mg/kg/day (p.o) | N/A | Male and female albino | LAT (5 mins) | ↓ Locomotor activity after 1 hour of administration | Sedative effect | |||||||||||||||||
| Leaves | Boiling water | 100, 200, 500, 1000 mg/kg (i.p.) | Desipramine, diazepam | Male IRC mice | FST | ↓ Immobility time at 100 and 200 mg/kg after 30 minutes of administration | Antidepressant-like effect at low dose (100, 200 mg/kg) | |||||||||||||||||
| CT | ↓ Climbing activity at 500 and 100 mg/kg after 30 minutes of administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| OFT | ↓ Time spent in open arms and the number of entry at 500 and 100 mg/kg after 30 minutes of administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| RRT | ↓ Time spent on the rod after 30 minutes of administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Leaves | Methanol | 50, 100, 200 mg/kg/day (i.p.) | Diazepam | Male Swiss albino mice, | OFT | ↑Square traversed at all doses after 30 minutes of administration | Anxiolytic effect | |||||||||||||||||
| HBT | ↑ The number of a head poking at 100 and 200 mg/kg after 30 minutes of administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| EPM | ↑Time spent in open arms at 100 and 200 mg/kg after 30 minutes of administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| LDP | ↑Time spent in lightboxes and ↓the time spent in dark boxes at 100 and 200 mg/kg after 30 minutes of administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Leaves | Water | 3–100 mg/kg/day (p.o) x 1 day (for acute test, and x 7 days for subchronic test | Fluoxetine | Male Swiss mice, 30–40 g | FST | ↓ Immobility time at all doses in acute test | The antidepressant-like property might occur due to syringic acid | |||||||||||||||||
| TST | ↓ Immobility time at 3, 10, 30 mg/kg in acute test, and at 3, 10, 30, 100 mg/kg in subchronic test | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| OFT | No significant changes in the number of crossings, rearing, and fecal boluses in both tests | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Syringic acid | N/A | N/A | 0.1 – 100 mg/kg/day (p.o) | TST | ↓ Immobility time at 1, 10 mg/kg in both acute and subchronic tests | |||||||||||||||||||
| OFT | No significant changes in the number of crossings, rearing, and fecal boluses in both tests | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Root | Methanol | 200 mg/kg/day (i.p.) | N/A | Male adult | SAT | ↓ Spontaneous activity by 72.78% after 30 minutes of administration | Sedative effect | |||||||||||||||||
| Morusin | N/A | N/A | 5, 10 mg/kg (i.p.) | Diazepam | Wistar albino rats (150–200 g) | LAT | ↓ Locomotor activity by 48.82% and 70.20% at 5 and 10 mg/kg, respectively after 30 minutes of administration | Sedative effect | ||||||||||||||||
| Sanggenon G | N/A | N/A | 3, 10, 30 mg/kg/day (i.p.) | Imipramine | 8 weeks male Sprague Dawley rats, 180–210g | FST | ↓ immobility time at 30 mg/kg after 60 minutes of administration | Antidepressant-like effects mediated serotonergic system. | ||||||||||||||||
| Sanggenon G | N/A | N/A | 5, 10, 20 mg/kg/day (i.p.) | Yohimbine | 8 weeks male Sprague–Dawley rats, 180–210g | FST (6 mins) | ↓ Immobility time at 20 mg/kg after 60 minutes of administration | Antidepressant-like effect | ||||||||||||||||
CT: Climbing test, DST: Despair swim test, EPM: Elevated plus maze, EtOAc: Ethyl acetate, FST: forced swimming test, HCT: Hole cross test, HBT: Hold board test, HWT: Horizontal Wire Test, i.p.: intraperitoneal injection, LAT: locomotor activity test, LDP: Light/dark paradigm, N/A: Not applied, OFT: Open field test, p.o: per oral, RRT: Rota-rod test, SAT: Spontaneous activity test, TST: Tail suspension test. * weight of extract per body weight of the animal.