| Literature DB >> 33976701 |
Nurul 'Ain Abu Bakar1, Muhammad Nazrul Hakim Abdullah1, Vuanghao Lim2, Yoke Keong Yong3.
Abstract
Momordica charantia (MC) is popular for its medicinal uses especially for treating diabetic-related complications. However, the antiulcer activity of essential oil derived from the seeds has not been systematically studied. This study aims to evaluate the gastroprotective activities of essential oil derived from the seed of MC induced by hydrochloride acid/ethanol (HCl/EtOH) and indomethacin and pylorus-ligation model. Gastric ulceration was induced by oral administration of HCl/EtOH solution or indomethacin on day 7 after animals have been pretreated with testing compounds. The first group received just distilled water and the second group received ranitidine (100 mg/kg). Groups 3, 4, and 5 received 10, 50, and 100 mg/kg of essential oil based on their body weight (10 mL/kg), respectively. Macroscopically, pretreatment of essential oil extracted from MC significantly decreased ulceration induced by HCl/EtOH and indomethacin in vivo. Microscopically, essential oil also significantly suppressed the formation of edema, epithelial disruption, and mucosa erosions. Moreover, essential oil significantly elevated the pH without decreasing the total acidity of the gastric juice and was able to increase the amount of adherent mucus compared to control. Current results provide scientific basis to the ethno-pharmacological usage of the MC in preventing ulcer formation induced by HCl/EtOH and indomethacin.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33976701 PMCID: PMC8084682 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5525584
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Effects of MCEO on total lesion area (mm2) of gastric ulcer induced by HCl/EtOH in rats.
| Treatments | Dose (mg/kg) | Total lesion area (mm2) | Inhibition (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disease control (distilled water) | — | 59.7 ± 7.4 | — |
| Ranitidine | 100 | 40.5 ± 3.2 | 32.1 |
| MCEO | 10 | 18.0 ± 4.0∗∗∗ | 69.8 |
| 50 | 7.8 ± 3.4∗∗∗ | 86.9 | |
| 100 | 5.0 ± 1.9∗∗∗ | 91.6 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6, p < 0.05, and ∗∗∗p < 0.005. Dunnett's test as compared to disease control value.
Figure 1Gross appearance of the gastric mucosa in rats induced by HCl/EtOH. (a) Rats pretreated with distilled water only. (b) Rats with HCl/EtOH and distilled water. (c) Rats with HCl/EtOH and ranitidine. (d) Rats with HCl/EtOH and 10 mg/kg of MCEO. (e) Rats with HCl/EtOH and 50 mg/kg of MCEO. (f) Rats with HCl/EtOH and 100 mg/kg of MCEO.
Effect of MCEO on ulcer index of gastric ulcer induced by HCl/EtOH in rats.
| Treatments | Dose (mg/kg) | Ulcer index | Inhibition (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disease control (distilled water) | — | 4.0 ± 0.0 | — |
|
| 100 | 3.5 ± 0.2 | 12.5% |
| 10 | 2.8 ± 0.3 | 29.3% | |
|
| |||
| MCEO | 50 | 2.5 ± 0.5 | 37.5% |
| 100 | 2.3 ± 0.6 | 41.8% | |
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6, and p < 0.05. Dunnett's test as compared to disease control value.
Effect of MCEO on total lesion area (mm2) of gastric ulcer induced by indomethacin on rats.
| Treatments | Dose (mg/kg) | Total lesion area (mm2) | Inhibition (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disease control (distilled water) | — | 36.7 ± 6.0 | — |
| Ranitidine | 100 | 6.2 ± 1.7∗∗∗ | 83.2 |
| MCEO | 10 | 20.5 ± 5.7 | 44.1 |
| 50 | 12.5 ± 3.3∗∗ | 65.9 | |
| 100 | 7.3 ± 3.1∗∗∗ | 80.0 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6, p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.005. Dunnett's test as compared to disease control value.
Figure 2Gross appearance of the gastric mucosa in rats induced by 100 mg/kg of indomethacin. (a) Rats pretreated with distilled water only. (b) Rats with indomethacin and distilled water. (c) Rats with indomethacin and ranitidine. (d) Rats with indomethacin and 10 mg/kg of MCEO. (e) Rats with indomethacin and 50 mg/kg of MCEO. (f) Rats with indomethacin and 100 mg/kg of MCEO.
Effect of MCEO on ulcer index of gastric ulcer induced by indomethacin on rats.
| Treatments | Dose (mg/kg) | Ulcer index | Inhibition (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disease control (distilled water) | — | 3.3 ± 0.2 | — |
| Ranitidine | 100 | 2.0 ± 0.4 | 39.4 |
| MCEO | 10 | 2.7 ± 0.4 | 18.2 |
| 50 | 2.3 ± 0.2 | 30.3 | |
| 100 | 1.8 ± 0.3∗∗ | 45.5 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6, p < 0.05 and ∗∗p < 0.01. Dunnett's test as compared to disease control value.
Figure 3Microscopic evaluation of the gastric mucosa in rats induced by HCl/EtOH. (a) Rats pretreated with distilled water only. (b) Rats with HCl/EtOH and distilled water. (c) Rats with HCl/EtOH and ranitidine. (d) Rats with HCl/EtOH and 10 mg/kg of MCEO. (e) Rats with HCl/EtOH and 50 mg/kg of MCEO. (f) Rats with HCl/EtOH and 100 mg/kg of MCEO. The sections were cut parallel to the muscle layer. Red arrow indicates epithelial disruption; black arrow indicates oedema; and blue arrow indicates the erosion extending to the muscularised mucosae. H&E staining, 100x magnification.
Effect of MCEO on HCl/EtOH-induced oedema, epithelial disruption, and mucosa erosion in gastric tissues.
| Groups | Grading system | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Oedema and/or vacuolation | Epithelial disruption | Erosion extending to muscularised mucosae | |
| Disease control (distilled water) | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 3.7 ± 0.6 | 4.5 ± 0.7 | 3.3 ± 0.7 |
| Ranitidine (100 mg/kg) | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.3 | 3.5 ± 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.8 |
| MCEO (10 mg/kg) | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 2.3 ± 0.3 | 5.0 ± 0.6 | 2.0 ± 0.9 |
| MCEO (50 mg/kg) | 1.2 ± 0.3 | 3.0 ± 0.5 | 4.0 ± 0.6 | 1.3 ± 0.8 |
| MCEO (100 mg/kg) | 1.5 ± 0.2 | 2.6 ± 0.4 | 1.5 ± 0.7∗∗ | 0.7 ± 0.7 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6, p < 0.05, and ∗∗p < 0.01. Dunnett's test as compared with disease control value.
Effect of MCEO on indomethacin-induced oedema, epithelial disruption, and mucosa erosion in gastric tissues.
| Groups | Grading system | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Oedema and/or vacuolation | Epithelial disruption | Erosion extending to muscularised mucosae | |
| Disease control (distilled water) | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 4.7 ± 0.8 | 6.5 ± 0.5 | 4.0 ± 1.0 |
| Ranitidine (100 mg/kg) | 2.7 ± 0.4∗∗ | 2.3 ± 0.3∗∗ | 3.5 ± 0.5 | 0.7 ± 0.7 |
| MCEO (10 mg/kg) | 2.3 ± 0.3 | 2.7 ± 0.4 | 4.5 ± 0.7 | 2.0 ± 0.9 |
| MCEO (50 mg/kg) | 2.2 ± 0.3 | 1.7 ± 0.3∗∗ | 3.0 ± 0.8∗∗ | 1.3 ± 0.8 |
| MCEO (100 mg/kg) | 2.5 ± 0.2∗∗ | 2.3 ± 0.8 | 3.0 ± 0.8∗∗ | 1.3 ± 0.8 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6, p < 0.05, and ∗∗p < 0.01. Dunnett's test as compared to disease control value.
Figure 4Microscopic evaluation of the gastric mucosa in rats induced by indomethacin. (a) Rats pretreated with distilled water only. (b) Rats with indomethacin and distilled water. (c) Rats with indomethacin and ranitidine. (d) Rats with indomethacin and 10 mg/kg of MCEO. (e) Rats with indomethacin and 50 mg/kg of MCEO. (f) Rats with indomethacin and 100 mg/kg of MCEO. The sections were cut parallel to the muscle layer. Red arrow indicates epithelial disruption; black arrow indicates oedema; and blue arrow indicates the erosion extending to the muscularised mucosae. H&E staining, 100x magnification.
Effect of MCEO on gastric juice parameters in pylorus-ligation model in rats.
| Groups | Gastric juice parameter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ulcer area (mm2) | Protection (%) | Volume (ml) | pH (unit) | Total acidity (m equiv./L) | |
| Disease control (distilled water) | 12.3 ± 1.7 | — | 3.2 ± 0.4 | 2.2 ± 0.4 | 2927.0 ± 442.1 |
| Ranitidine (100 mg/kg) | 6.7 ± 0.6 | 46.0 | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 4.2 ± 0.2∗∗∗ | 2773.0 ± 452.7 |
| MCEO (10 mg/kg) | 8.3 ± 1.1 | 32.4 | 2.3 ± 0.4 | 2.9 ± 0.3 | 3020.0 ± 663.8 |
| MCEO (50 mg/kg) | 10.7 ± 1.5 | 13.5 | 4.1 ± 1.0 | 4.0 ± 0.2∗∗∗ | 5700.0 ± 59.1∗∗ |
| MCEO (100 mg/kg) | 7.0 ± 0.7 | 43.2 | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 4.0 ± 0.2∗∗∗ | 3380.0 ± 734.0 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6, p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, and ∗∗∗p < 0.005. Dunnett's test as compared to disease control value.
Effect of MCEO on gastric wall mucus secretion in pylorus-ligation model in rats.
| Treatments | Dose (mg/kg) | Gastric wall mucus (alcian blue mg/g wet tissue) |
|---|---|---|
| Disease control (distilled water) | — | 1.1 ± 0.1 |
| Ranitidine | 100 | 1.9 ± 0.3 |
| MCEO | 10 | 1.6 ± 0.2 |
| 50 | 2.1 ± 0.1∗∗ | |
| 100 | 2.1 ± 0.3∗∗ |
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM, n = 6, p < 0.05, and ∗∗p < 0.01. Dunnett's test as compared to disease control value.