| Literature DB >> 35188051 |
Narendra Babu Kondapalli1, Rajkumar Hemalatha1, Satyanarayana Uppala2, Srinivas Reddy Yathapu1, Shujauddin Mohammed1, Mullapudi Venkata Surekha3, Ananthan Rajendran4, Dinesh Kumar Bharadwaj5.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Ocimum sanctum Linn (Labiatae) (OS), Zingiber officinale Rose (Zingiberaceae) (ZO), and Piper nigrum Linn (Piperaceae) (PN) are used in traditional medicine as immunomodulator, anti-inflammatory, and bioavailability enhancer agents.Entities:
Keywords: Herbal extracts on endotoxin; beneficial bacteria; essential oils; phenolic compounds; systemic inflammation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35188051 PMCID: PMC8865113 DOI: 10.1080/13880209.2022.2033797
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharm Biol ISSN: 1388-0209 Impact factor: 3.503
Primers used in the study for real-time qPCR and size of PCR products.
| Target organism | Primer Sequence (5⇒ to 3⇒) | PCR product bp | T°C | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 200 | 55 | Frank et al. | |
|
| 126 | 60 | Yadav et al. | |
|
| F: GTCAGTTGTGAAAGTTTGC | 127 | 60 | Ahmed et al. |
| Firmicutes | 126 | 60 | Yadav et al. | |
| All bacteria | F: ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCAGT | 200 | 60 | Ahmed et al. |
Polyphenols in O.sanctum, Z.officinale, P.nigrum and combined extracts.
| Polyphenols (mg/100gm) |
|
|
| Combination* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gallic acid | 4.02 ± 0.12 | 84.13 ± 1.2 | 6.49 ± 0.52 | 12.91 ± 0.47 |
| Protocatechuic acid | 23.53 ± 0.1.2 | 19.26 ± 0.32 | 15.38 ± 0.25 | 22.18 ± 0.62 |
| 12.61 ± 0.32 | 0.77 ± 0.11 | 3.35 ± 0.42 | 8.59 ± 0.43 | |
| Catechin | 356 ± 2.02 | 9.70 ± 0.14 | 28.15 ± 0.62 | 194 ± 1.66 |
| Caffeic acid | 55.68 ± 1.21 | 1.43 ± 0.01 | 3.92 ± 0.23 | 33.32 ± 1.32 |
| Sinapic acid | 18.58 ± 0.12 | 0.95 ± 0.06 | 2.54 ± 0.31 | 12.41 ± 0.91 |
| Ferulic acid | 7.17 ± 0.23 | 2.82 ± 0.35 | 10.45 ± 0.64 | 8.17 ± 0.33 |
| BDL | 3.84 ± 0.11 | 0.80 ± 0.01 | 0.82 ± 0.04 | |
| Ellagic acid | 18.14 ± 0.21 | 14.64 ± 10.62 | 2.47 ± 0.26 | 11.39 ± 0.62 |
| 10.19 ± 0.96 | 7.06 ± 0.14 | 1.60 ± 0.02 | 5.22 ± 0.34 | |
| Luteolin-7 | 430 ± 2.3 | BDL | BDL | 266 ± 1.8 |
| Myricetin | 43.70 ± 1.2 | BDL | 2.52 ± 0.34 | 27.52 ± 0.56 |
| Resveratrol | 270 ± 2.1 | 2.72 ± 0.12 | BDL | 164 ± 2.8 |
| Daidzein | BDL | BDL | 2.26 ± 0.41 | 3.13 ± 0.24 |
| Quercetin | BDL | BDL | BDL | BDL |
| Luteolin | 64.10 ± 1.02 | BDL | 2.23 ± 0.61 | 39.09 ± 0.99 |
| Naringenin | 6.43 ± 0.31 | BDL | 24.95 ± 1.51 | 12.99 ± 0.53 |
| Apigenin | 132 ± 3.11 | BDL | BDL | 79.57 ± 1.65 |
| Kaempferol | 57.03 ± 1.21 | BDL | BDL | 36.78 ± 0.87 |
| Hesperetin | 164 ± 2.31 | BDL | 7.06 ± 0.97 | 93.66 ± 2.56 |
| Flavone | BDL | 21.89 ± 0.91 | 88.18 ± 1.8 | 33.36 ± 1.65 |
*Combination (animal dose: 1450 mg/kg.bwt) = O. sanctum (850 mg [58.6%]) + Z. officinale (500 mg [34.6%]) + P. nigrum (100 mg [7.0%]; BDL: Below Detectable Level.
Figure 1.HPLC Chromatograms Polyphenol Standards and Extracts alone and combined and Retention Time %. (a) HPLC Chromatogram of polyphenol Standards and Retention Time. (b) HPLC Chromatogram of Ocimum sanctum polyphenols and Retention Time. (c) HPLC Chromatogram of Zingiber officinale polyphenols and Retention Time. (d) HPLC Chromatogram of Piper nigrum polyphenols and Retention Time. (e) HPLC Chromatogram of combined (O. Sanctum+ Z. officinale + P. nigrum) polyphenols and Retention Time.
Figure 3.Effect of O. sanctum, Z. officinale and P. nigrum on bodyweight and food intake.
Effects of O. sanctum, Z. officinale and P. nigrum on haematology parameters.
| Groups | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | CTRL | FOS |
|
|
|
|
| WBC (10E3/mm3) | 6.10 ± 0.51 | 6.17 ± 0.49 | 6.21 ± 0.69 | 6.11 ± 0.11 | 6.11 ± 0.22 | 6.08 ± 0.11 |
| RBC (10E3/mm3) | 8.56 ± 0.14 | 8.56 ± 0.26 | 8.51 ± 0.09 | 8.44 ± 0.22 | 8.25 ± 0.18 | 8.48 ± 0.12 |
| Hb (g/dL) | 16.75 ± 0.15 | 17.17 ± 0.40 | 17.50 ± 0.10 | 16.92 ± 0.19 | 17.02 ± 0.27 | 17.42 ± 0.12* |
| Neutrophils (%) | 27.50 ± 1.54 | 28.83 ± 2.01 | 29.67 ± 0.76 | 29.33 ± 1.20 | 29.67 ± 3.11 | 29.67 ± 2.80 |
| Lymphocytes (%) | 65.50 ± 1.89 | 64.00 ± 1.65 | 63.50 ± 3.14 | 62.83 ± 1.35 | 63.50 ± 3.12 | 64.83 ± 1.38 |
| Monocytes (%) | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 0.47 ± 0.05 | 0.48 ± 0.03 | 0.48 ± 0.03 | 0.47 ± 0.02 | 0.48 ± 0.03 |
| Eosinophils (%) | 0.27 ± 0.04 | 0.28 ± 0.05 | 0.28 ± 0.05 | 0.28 ± 0.04 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | 0.28 ± 0.5 |
| Basophils (%) | 0.23 ± 0.03 | 0.23 ± 0.05 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.03 |
Values are Mean ± SE; *The mean difference is significant at the p* < 0.05 (Significant difference between control and groups at 5% level).
Figure 4.Effect of O. sanctum, Z. officinale and P. nigrum on lipid profile.
Figure 5.Effect of O. sanctum, Z. officinale and P. nigrum on LPS.
Effects of O. sanctum, Z. officinale and P. nigrum on CRP, IL-6 & insulin.
| Parameters (Mean ± SE) | CTRL | FOS |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-reactive protein (µg/mL) | 2910.16 ± 7.17a | 2874.64 ± 97.36a | 2993.94 ± 352.82a | 2855.78 ± 418.76a | 2891.72 ± 439.53a | 2976.15 ± 253.91a |
| IL-6 (pg/mL) | 248.7 ± 57.06a | 228.12 ± 70.41a | 243.14 ± 61.79a | 225.52 ± 93.45a | 227.22 ± 70.71a | 228.13 ± 79.84a |
| Insulin (IU/mL) | 10.13 ± 0.26a | 13.98 ± 2.03a | 12.64 ± 0.31a | 11.51 ± 0.86a | 14.68 ± 2.12a | 11.10 ± 1.98a |
Values are Mean ± SE; Means bearing similar superscripts in each row do not differ significantly.
Figure 6.Effect of O. sanctum, Z. officinale and P. nigrum on Caecal bacterial levels.
Figure 7.Effect of O. sanctum, Z. officinale and P. nigrum on histopathological observation of vital organs.