| Literature DB >> 33447753 |
Nurul Maizan Manshor1, Nadiah Razali1, Rusdiah Ruzanna Jusoh1, Mohd Zaini Asmawi1, Nornisah Mohamed2, Syafinaz Zainol2, Rabia Altaf3, Aidiahmad Dewa1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Labisia pumila has been reported to possess activities including antioxidant, anti-aging and anti-cancer but there is no report on its vasorelaxant effects.Entities:
Keywords: Labisia pumila; Spontaneously hypertensive rat; Vasorelaxation
Year: 2020 PMID: 33447753 PMCID: PMC7803023 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijchy.2020.100024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Cardiol Hypertens ISSN: 2590-0862
Fig. 1Concentration-relaxation response curve of various extracts (A) and fractions (B) of Labisia pumila and concentration-relaxation response curves of Labisia pumila on PE-precontracted endothelium-intact (C) and endothelium-denuded (D) aortic rings. Comparison between groups for (A) and (B) was performed by two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test and comparison between groups for (C) and (D) was performed by Student's t-test. Values are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. for six aortic rings (n = 6). *p < 0.1 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.
Tabular summary of the maximum relaxation (Rmax) and EC50 value of various type of Labisia pumila crude extracts and fractions; and the vasorelaxant effect of WF-LPWE on aortic rings preincubated with different inhibitors. The results are presented as the best-fit values of means ± S.E.M. for six aortic rings (n = 6). Data were analysed using Student's t-test and two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's post hoc test.
| Maximum relaxation (Rmax) and EC50 response on various type of | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | n | Rmax (% relaxation) | EC50 (-log EC50) | |
| Crude Extracts of | Control | 6 | 2.86 ± 4.5 | 1.6 ± 0.1 |
| LPWE | 6 | 161.0 ± 16.3* | 0.2 ± 0.1 | |
| LPPET | 6 | 125.1 ± 10.1* | 1.0 ± 0.5 | |
| LPMEOH | 6 | 170.3 ± 6.5* | 0.4 ± 0.3 | |
| LPEA | 6 | 136.8 ± 22.0* | 0.6 ± 0.5 | |
| LPCHLOR | 6 | 106.5 ± 4.1* | 0.5 ± 0.2 | |
| Fractions of LPWE | Control | 6 | 3.6 ± 4.7 | 0.8 ± 4.0 |
| WF-LPWE | 6 | 113.8 ± 3.1* | 0.7 ± 0.1 | |
| EAF-LPWE | 6 | 122.6 ± 14.8* | 1.1 ± 0.5 | |
| BF-LPWE | 6 | 119.8 ± 5.2* | 0.4 ± 0.3 | |
| Denuded | Control | 6 | 5.7 ± 1.0 | 0.2 ± 0.0 |
| WF-LPWE | 6 | 174.3 ± 1.7* | 0.6 ± 0.0 | |
| L-NAME | WF-LPWE | 6 | 70.4 ± 7.6 | 0.6 ± 0.0 |
| WF-LPWE + L-NAME | 6 | 81.6 ± 5.5 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | |
| Indomethacin | WF-LPWE | 6 | 80.0 ± 13.3 | 0.5 ± 0.2 |
| WF-LPWE + Indo | 6 | 73.9 ± 13.4 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | |
| Methylene Blue | WF-LPWE | 6 | 93.7 ± 5.6 | 0.7 ± 0.1 |
| WF-LPWE + MB | 6 | 98.4 ± 10.9 | 1.7 ± 0.1 | |
| ODQ | WF-LPWE | 6 | 87.5 ± 6.7 | 3.2 ± 0.2 |
| WF-LPWE + ODQ | 6 | 50.3 ± 4.4# | 0.6 ± 0.2 | |
| Atropine | WF-LPWE | 6 | 52.9 ± 8.8 | 0.3 ± 0.5 |
| WF-LPWE + Atropine | 6 | 79.1 ± 7.8 | 0.1 ± 0.3 | |
| Prazosin | WF-LPWE | 6 | 53.6 ± 4.6 | 1.6 ± 0.2 |
| WF-LPWE + Prazosin | 6 | 39.7 ± 10.0 | 1.9 ± 0.3 | |
| Propranolol | WF-LPWE | 6 | 62.9 ± 2.3 | 0.3 ± 0.1 |
| WF-LPWE + Propranolol | 6 | 65.7 ± 3.3 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | |
*p < 0.001 vs. control.#p < 0.001 vs. WF-LPWE before inhibitor.
Fig. 2Effect of WF-LPWE on rat aortic rings pre-incubated with the cGMP inhibitor, methylene blue (A) and the selective cGMP inhibitor, ODQ (B). Comparison between groups was performed by two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's post hoc test. *p < 0.1, ***p < 0.001. (C) and (D) represent inhibitory effect of WF-LPWE on intracellular Ca2+ release from the sarcoplasmic reticulum and extracellular Ca2+, respectively, in endothelium-denuded rat aortic rings pre-contracted with PE 1 μM in Ca2+-free Krebs' solution. Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. for six aortic rings (n = 6). Comparison between groups was performed by Student's t-test. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Fig. 3Chromatogram of (A) a mixture solution of standards (gallic acid; retention time = 7.023 and catechin; retention time = 12.851) (wavelength 270 nm; flow rate 0.7 mil/min; injection volume 10.0 μl) and (B) WF-LPWE (wavelength 280 nm; flow rate 0.7 mil/min; injection volume 10.0 μl).