| Literature DB >> 33869811 |
Tanoy Mazumder1, Imran Parvez Mamun1, Md Safayat Zaman1, A K M Khairul Islam1, Shahjala Chowdhury1, Md Sharif Reza1, Md Saddam Hussain1.
Abstract
Our present study was designed to investigate the comparative anti-obesity efficacy of ethanolic extract of Azadirachta indica A. Juss., Trigonella foenum-graecum L., Allium sativum L. and Zingiber officinale Roscoe in high fat-induced mice with their total phenolic and flavonoid profile. Total phenolic and flavonoid content were determined by Folin-Ciocalteu's and Aluminium chloride UV method respectively. In our study, 55 healthy mice were separated into 11 groups to take their respective treatments. Lipid and uric acid profile were estimated by using the enzymatic colourimetric method. Ethanolic extract of A. indica contained the highest phenolic and flavonoid content. A. indica normal and high fat diet group showed reduced weight gaining tendency than other extract groups. A. indica at a dose of 400 mg/kg body weight significantly (p < 0.001) reduced serum cholesterol (SC), triglyceride (TG), and uric acid (UA) level than other three extracts when compared with the control group. Thus, a considerable correlation was found between serum uric acid reducing potentials of the present experimental extracts with a lipid-lowering profile. Pathological examination revealed that the average weight of liver and kidney were significantly decreased in A. indica normal. Results obtained from the present study it can be concluded that ethanolic extract of A. indica possesses better lipid-lowering efficacy than the other three herbs.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiovascular drugs; Cholesterol; Lipid-lowering; Phenolic and flavonoid content; Triglyceride; Uric acid
Year: 2021 PMID: 33869811 PMCID: PMC8044636 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrep.2021.100990
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biochem Biophys Rep ISSN: 2405-5808
Total phenolic and flavonoid content of ethanolic extract of A. indica A.Juss, A. sativum L., T. foenum-graecum L. and Z. officinale Roscoe.
| Extract of | TPC (mg GAE/gm of dry extract) | TFC (quercetin equivalent/100 gm of extract) |
|---|---|---|
| 205.31 ± 0.398 | 56.04 ± 1.89 | |
| 177.263 ± 1.2 | 14.74 ± 0.250 | |
| 111.632 ± 0.699 | 21.9 ± 0.255 | |
| 94.39 ± 1.097 | 7.7 ± 0.335 |
Values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 5); TPC = Total Phenolic Content, GAE = Gallic acid equivalent, TFC = Total Flavonoid Content.
Figure-1Bodyweight variation of mice of different experimental groups.
All values are represented as mean ± SEM where, level of significance stated as ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 when compared with the control group.
All values are represented as mean ± SEM where, level of significance stated as ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 when compared with the control group.
Organ weight variation among the mice of different treatment groups.
| Treatment group | The average weight of the heart (gm) | The average weight of the liver (gm) | The average weight of the left kidney (gm) | The average weight of the right kidney (gm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 0.148 ± 0.002 | 1.586 ± 0.06 | 0.318 ± 0.03 | 0.316 ± 0.05 |
| HFD | 0.161 ± 0.01 | 1.61 ± 0.1 | 0.331 ± 0.06* | 0.336 ± 0.02* |
| Standard | 0.094 ± 0.007*** | 1.46 ± 0.07 | 0.297 ± 0.01 | 0.301 ± 0.03 |
| ND + | 0.115 ± 0.01** | 1.121 ± 0.04*** | 0.233 ± 0.01** | 0.251 ± 0.01** |
| HFD + | 0.131 ± 0.004** | 1.09 ± 0.07** | 0.206 ± 0.2** | 0.207 ± 0.09 |
| ND + | 0.12 ± 0.004** | 1.116 ± 0.02*** | 0.267 ± 0.03* | 0.273 ± 0.04 |
| HFD + | 0.140 ± 0.01 | 1.363 ± 0.04** | 0.309 ± 0.01* | 0.305 ± 0.03** |
| ND + | 0.134 ± 0.004** | 1.48 ± 0.05 | 0.249 ± 0.01* | 0.245 ± 0.06** |
| HFD + | 0.141 ± 0.005 | 1.495 ± 0.07 | 0.319 ± 0.04 | 0.322 ± 0.21** |
| ND + | 0.139 ± 0.005 | 1.604 ± 0.07 | 0.321 ± 0.04** | 0.326 ± 0.05 |
| HFD + | 0.148 ± 0.01 | 1.411 ± 0.02** | 0.339 ± 0.03 | 0.336 ± 0.04 |
All values are represented as mean ± SEM where, level of significance stated as ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 when compared with the control group.
Figure-2Comparative fat deposition profile of treatment groups.
All values are represented as mean ± SEM where, level of significance stated as ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 when compared with the control group.
Analysis of serum cholesterol, triglyceride, and a uric acid level of the different experimental group.
| Treatment group | CHOL level (mg/dl) | TG level (mg/dl) | UA level (mg/dl) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 171.56 ± 2.43 | 140.41 ± 2.4 | 4.97 ± 0.46 |
| HFD | 189.3 ± 4.41 | 178.98 ± 8.16*** | 3.63 ± 0.3 |
| Standard | 83.79 ± 2.41 | 72.28 ± 6.41 | 2.27 ± 0.3 |
| ND + | 124.77 ± 5.89*** | 90.59 ± 1.48*** | 2.53 ± 0.21* |
| HFD + | 136.69 ± 5.05*** | 102.56 ± 3.38*** | 2.28 ± 0.51* |
| ND + | 133.02 ± 4.70*** | 98.16 ± 8.46** | 2.37 ± 0.38* |
| HFD + | 149.23 ± 6.62** | 107.69 ± 17.55 | 2.84 ± 2.09* |
| ND + | 151.37 ± 6.24** | 113.79 ± 10.5** | 3.58 ± 0.91 |
| HFD + | 154.74 ± 9.13 | 119.41 ± 10.84 | 2.75 ± 0.26* |
| ND + | 167.58 ± 3.72 | 126.00 ± 4.29 | 3.3 ± 0.17 |
| HFD + | 164.53 ± 10.07 | 129.67 ± 0.42 | 3.26 ± 0.26 |
All values are represented as mean ± SEM where, level of significance stated as ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 when compared with the control group; CHOL= Cholesterol, TG = Triglyceride, UA= Uric Acid.
All values are represented as mean ± SEM where, level of significance stated as ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 when compared with the control group.