| Literature DB >> 34960072 |
Stefania Nobili1, Elena Lucarini2, Stefania Murzilli3, Arianna Vanelli3, Lorenzo Di Cesare Mannelli2, Carla Ghelardini2.
Abstract
Erectile dysfunction affects more than 50% of diabetic male patients, with a higher prevalence compared with the general population. Age, clinical factors, and lifestyle habits have been suggested to contribute to the pathophysiology and worsening of erectile dysfunction in diabetic patients. First- and second-line standard treatments are represented by phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors and alprostadil, respectively. However, natural compounds have been suggested to ameliorate this clinical condition. This study aims to preclinically characterize the potential synergism among plant-derived products for the improvement of erectile dysfunction in the diabetic condition. The effects of a nutritional supplement composed of Panax ginseng, Moringa oleifera and rutin, as single agents or as a mixture, were evaluated in a streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic rat model with erectile dysfunction. The treatment efficacy was evaluated by measuring sexual-related parameters (i.e., mount and intromission latencies, the mount and intromission frequencies and the ejaculation latency). Results showed that only the mixture was able to significantly reduce the diabetes-related delay in mount latency (p < 0.01). Substantial similar effects were observed by measuring the intromission latency and the mean number of mounts was very similar between rats treated with the mixture and controls. Single agent treatments showed very low effects in terms of intromission frequency, whereas the mixture was able to increase this parameter. Additionally, a statistically significant reduced ejaculation latency was observed in rats treated with the mixture compared with the STZ control. These results are in agreement with the available literature and suggest that the study mixture may ameliorate sexual behavior compared with the administration of the study natural compounds as single agents in diabetic rats. Further preclinical and clinical studies are needed to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the study mixture.Entities:
Keywords: Moringa oleifera; Panax ginseng; animal studies; diabetes; erectile dysfunction; rutin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34960072 PMCID: PMC8707335 DOI: 10.3390/nu13124520
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Glucose blood levels. Results are reported as mean ± S.E.M. of 10 rats. ** p < 0.01 vs. control; ^ p < 0.05 vs. STZ.
Glucose blood levels (mg/dL).
| Control | STZ | STZ + Rutin | STZ + | STZ + | STZ + Mixture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 108 ± 6.2 | 364.8 ± 23.5 ** | 375.3 ± 17.9 | 289.6 ± 26.2 ^ | 311.9 ± 15.9 ^ | 271.2 ± 28.4 ^ |
Results are reported as mean ± S.E.M. of 10 rats. ** p < 0.01 vs. control; ^ p < 0.05 vs. STZ.
Figure 2Mount latency. Results are reported as mean ± S.E.M. of 10 rats. ** p < 0.01 vs. control; ^^ p < 0.01 vs. STZ.
Mount latency (seconds).
| Control | STZ | STZ + Rutin | STZ + | STZ + | STZ + Mixture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 101.3 ± 5.6 | 259.6 ± 14.5 ** | 241.4 ± 16.8 | 244.7 ± 12.6 | 263.2 ± 10.3 | 151.6 ± 8.4 ^^ |
Results are reported as mean ± S.E.M. of 10 rats. ** p < 0.01 vs. control; ^^ p < 0.01 vs. STZ.
Figure 3Intromission latency. Results are reported as mean ± S.E.M. of 10 rats. ** p < 0.01 vs. control; ^^ p < 0.01 vs. STZ.
Intromission latency (seconds).
| Control | STZ | STZ + Rutin | STZ + | STZ + | STZ + Mixture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 108.6 ± 3.3 | 271.1 ± 18.5 ** | 243.6 ± 10.1 | 260.0 ± 8.8 | 268.8 ± 12.6 | 160.4 ± 10.1 ^^ |
Results are reported as mean ± S.E.M. of 10 rats. ** p < 0.01 vs. control; ^^ p < 0.01 vs. STZ.
Figure 4Mount frequency. Results are reported as mean ± S.E.M. of 10 rats. ** p < 0.01 vs. control; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 vs. STZ.
Mount frequency (number).
| Control | STZ | STZ + Rutin | STZ + | STZ + | STZ + Mixture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.2 ± 0.2 | 2.2 ± 0.1 ** | 5.8 ± 0.3 ^ | 3.4 ± 0.5 | 5.6 ± 0.2 ^ | 6.4 ± 0.4 ^^ |
Results are reported as mean ± S.E.M. of 10 rats. ** p < 0.01 vs. control; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 vs. STZ.
Figure 5Intromission frequency. Results are reported as mean ± S.E.M. of 10 rats. ** p < 0.01 vs. control; ^^ p < 0.01 vs. STZ.
Intromission frequency (number).
| Control | STZ | STZ + Rutin | STZ + | STZ + | STZ + Mixture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17.5 ± 3.1 | 6.2 ± 1.1 ** | 6.5 ± 0.8 | 8.2 ± 2.3 | 8.4 ± 2.6 | 13.8 ± 3.6 ^^ |
Results are reported as mean ± S.E.M. of 10 rats. ** p < 0.01 vs. control; ^^ p < 0.01 vs. STZ.
Figure 6Ejaculation latency. Results are reported as mean ± S.E.M. of 10 rats. ** p < 0.01 vs. control; ^^ p < 0.01 vs. STZ.
Ejaculation latency (seconds).
| Control | STZ | STZ + Rutin | STZ + | STZ + | STZ + Mixture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 345.8 ± 15.6 | 623.4 ± 22.6 ** | 636.8 ± 32.1 | 601.8 ± 18.9 | 630.5 ± 29.4 | 552.1 ± 19.7 ^^ |
Results are reported as mean ± S.E.M. of 10 rats. ** p < 0.01 vs. control; ^^ p < 0.01 vs. STZ.