| Literature DB >> 35311163 |
Neelam Iftikhar1, Abdullah Ijaz Hussain1,2, Shahzad Ali Shahid Chatha1, Nazia Sultana1, Hassaan Anwer Rathore3,4.
Abstract
Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Zingiber officinalis teas are traditionally used for the therapies of various diseases, including obesity. The present research work was planned to appraise the potential of polyphenol-rich extracts of selected herbal plants in obesity and related biochemical parameters of high-fat-sugar diet-induced obese rats. Three herbal teas were prepared from Hibiscus rosa-sinensis flowers and Zingiber officinalis rhizomes and their mixture (3:1, respectively). Total phenolic contents (TPC) of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Zingiber officinalis extracts were found to be 5.82 and 1.45 mg/g of dry plant material, measured as GAE, while total flavonoid contents (TFC) were 9.17 and 1.95 mg/g of dry plant material, measured as CE, respectively. Two doses (250 and 500 mg/kg BW) of each tea were administered and body weight, BMI, kidney, liver, and atherogenic indices, TC, TG, HDL, LDL, VLDL, BT, AST, ALT, AP, SC, MDA, SOD, GSH, and TAC of rats groups were measured. Data showed that higher doses of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis significantly reduced the rat's BMI (0.50 g/cm2) in comparison with the high-fat-sugar diet group (0.79 g/cm2). All treatment groups, especially H-500 group, showed a significant decrease in the elevated kidney and liver weights and atherogenic index in comparison with HFSDC groups. Higher doses of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis significantly decreased the levels of AST, ALT, AP, and SC in comparison with the HFSDC group. A significant decrease in the levels of serum TC, TG, LDL, and VLDL was observed in all the treatment groups in comparison with the HFSDC group. Furthermore, all the teas, especially higher doses of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, prevented the alterations in MDA, SOD, and GSH levels of experimental groups, thus showing the potential against oxidative stress. It can be concluded from these results that Hibiscus rosa-sinensis teas exhibited strong protective effects against obesity and oxidative stress, especially at higher doses.Entities:
Keywords: BMI; GSH; LDL and HDL; MDA; SOD; high‐fat diet; kidney index; liver index; nutraceutical; phenolic acids and flavonoids
Year: 2022 PMID: 35311163 PMCID: PMC8907747 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.2695
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Extract yield, total phenolic, total flavonoid contents, and radical scavenging capacity of different herbal teas
| Assays | Herbal Teas | BHT | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hibiscus | Ginger | ||
| Extract yield (g/100 g) | 18.41 ± 0.55b | 10.22 ± 0.51a | ‐‐‐ |
| TPC (mg/g of dry plant material, measured as gallic acid equivalent) | 5.82 ± 0.33b | 1.45 ± 0.08a | ‐‐‐ |
| TFC (mg/g of dry plant material, measured as catechin equivalent) | 9.17 ± 0.90b | 1.95 ± 0.13a | ‐‐‐ |
| DPPH radical scavenging activity (%) exhibited by 10 µg/ml | 59.0 ± 2.0b | 53.4 ± 1.4a | 89.1 ± 2.2c |
Values are mean ± SD of three independent experiments.
Different superscript letters in the same row represent significant (p ≤ .05) difference among hibiscus, ginger teas, and synthetic antioxidant (BHT).
FIGURE 1Typical HPLC chromatogram showing the separation of phenolic acids and flavonoids from hibiscus extracts
Contents of phenolic acids and flavonoids identified from aqueous herbal extract by Rp‐HPLC
| Compounds | Concentration (mg/100 ml of tea) | |
|---|---|---|
| Hibiscus | Ginger | |
| Tannic acid | ND | 0.21 ± 0.01 |
| Arbutin | 1.39 ± 0.05a | 7.66 ± 0.40b |
| Gallic acid | 55.21 ± 2.70d | 17.32 ± 0.53a |
| 4‐Hydroxybenzoic acid | 3.60 ± 0.19b | 24.18 ± 1.12d |
| Catechin | 78.25 ± 3.92a | 102.8 ± 3.94b |
| Chlorogenic acid | 14.39 ± 0.70b | 8.14 ± 0.42a |
| Caffeic acid | 8.43 ± 0.41d | 0.83 ± 0.05a |
| Syringic acid | 1.83 ± 0.04c | 1.49 ± 0.06b |
| Vanillic acid | 1.24 ± 0.07b | 0.95 ± 0.04a |
|
| 3.92 ± 0.17b | 2.63 ± 0.11a |
| Salicylic acid | 0.39 ± 0.02a | 8.99 ± 0.34d |
| Rutin | 15.34 ± 1.01a | 83.37 ± 3.39c |
| Sinapic acid | 0.23 ± 0.02a | 0.22 ± 0.01a |
| Ferulic acid | 1.35 ± 0.05c | 0.17 ± 0.01a |
| Ellagic acid | 0.89 ± 0.06a | 1.63 ± 0.06c |
| Cinnamic acid | 0.19 ± 0.01a | 0.33 ± 0.02b |
| Benzoic acid | 4.72 ± 0.30c | ND |
| Myricetin | 0.20 ± 0.01a | ND |
| Quercetin | 1.74 ± 0.07a | ND |
Values are mean ± SD of three independent experiments.
Different superscript letters in the same row represent significant (p ≤ .05) difference between hibiscus and ginger teas.
Effect of herbal tea and orlistat on the body, kidney and liver weights, body mass, kidney and liver indices of different groups of obesity rat model
| Groups | Body weight | BMI (g/cm2) | Kidney weight (g) | Kidney index (%) | Liver weight (g) | Liver index (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial (g) | Final (g) | Increase (%) | ||||||
| NC | 155 ± 15 | 218 ± 12 | 40.64# | 0.60 ± 0.05# | 1.56 ± 0.24 | 0.71 | 6.92 ± 1.11 | 3.17# |
| HFSDC | 143 ± 14 | 285 ± 12 | 99.30* | 0.79 ± 0.05* | 1.74 ± 0.17 | 0.61* | 10.1 ± 1.00 | 3.54* |
| PC | 145 ± 11 | 228 ± 21 | 57.24*# | 0.57 ± 0.05# | 1.57 ± 0.23 | 0.68# | 8.13 ± 1.13 | 3.45 |
| H‐250 | 132 ± 14 | 226 ± 18 | 71.21*# | 0.51 ± 0.03*# | 1.57 ± 0.23 | 0.64 | 7.76 ± 1.01 | 3.43 |
| H‐500 | 147 ± 13 | 231 ± 11 | 57.14*# | 0.50 ± 0.04*# | 1.55 ± 0.25 | 0.67 | 6.24 ± 1.09 | 3.41# |
| G‐250 | 146 ± 10 | 264 ± 16 | 80.82* | 0.66 ± 0.05# | 1.71 ± 0.18 | 0.63 | 8.69 ± 1.04 | 3.46* |
| G‐500 | 149 ± 13 | 244 ± 10 | 63.75*# | 0.61 ± 0.05# | 1.64 ± 0.21 | 0.66 | 7.94 ± 1.11 | 3.41# |
| HG‐250 | 147 ± 12 | 259 ± 11 | 76.19*# | 0.59 ± 0.04# | 1.59 ± 0.10 | 0.61 | 8.93 ± 0.88 | 3.45* |
| HG‐500 | 147 ± 11 | 232 ± 11 | 57.82*# | 0.53 ± 0.01*# | 1.48 ± 0.20 | 0.64 | 7.88 ± 1.00 | 3.40# |
Values are mean ± standard deviation of six rats of the same group.
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; G‐250 and G‐500, ginger 250 and 500 mg/kg BW; H‐250 and H‐500, hibiscus 250 and 500 mg/kg BW; HFSDC, high‐fat and sugar diet control; HG‐250 and HG‐500, hibiscus:ginger (3:1) 250 and 500 mg/kg BW; NC, normal control.
PC, positive control.
*Significant (p ≤ .05) difference compared with NC.
#Significant (p ≤ .05) difference compared with HFSDC among all the groups.
FIGURE 2Effect of treatment on the lipid profile of different rat groups. HDL, high‐density lipoprotein; LDL, low‐density lipoprotein; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglycerides; VLDL, very low‐density lipoprotein. *Significant (p ≤ .05) difference compared with NC. #Significant (p ≤ .05) difference compared with HFSDC among all the groups
Effect of herbal tea and orlistat treatment on the biochemical parameters of different groups of obesity rat model
| Groups | Liver parameters | Kidney parameters | Atherogenic index | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BT (mg/dl) | AST (µ/L) | ALT) (µ/L) | AP (µ/L) | SC (mg/dl) | ||
| NC | 0.43 ± 0.05# | 63.0 ± 5.0# | 81.2 ± 5.3 | 143 ± 12# | 0.43 ± 0.06# | 1.37 ± 0.08# |
| HFSDC | 0.26 ± 0.02* | 98.4 ± 4.8* | 82.1 ± 4.0 | 164 ± 9* | 0.55 ± 0.04* | 3.37 ± 0.15* |
| PC | 0.37 ± 0.03# | 62.5 ± 5.8# | 62.1 ± 3.9*# | 152 ± 11 | 0.41 ± 0.06# | 1.63 ± 0.10*# |
| H‐250 | 0.33 ± 0.03*# | 79.9 ± 3.2*# | 74.7 ± 4.6 | 146 ± 15 | 0.46 ± 0.03# | 2.16 ± 0.11*# |
| H‐500 | 0.38 ± 0.03# | 66.6 ± 2.6# | 69.0 ± 3.1*# | 142 ± 11# | 0.45 ± 0.04# | 1.71 ± 0.11*# |
| G−250 | 0.37 ± 0.03# | 87.3 ± 4.7*# | 79.0 ± 4.4 | 147 ± 16 | 0.43 ± 0.03# | 2.77 ± 0.18*# |
| G‐500 | 0.41 ± 0.03# | 75.5 ± 3.3*# | 78.6 ± 2.8 | 146 ± 15 | 0.38 ± 0.03# | 2.05 ± 0.19*# |
| HG‐250 | 0.35 ± 0.03# | 82.0 ± 4.1*# | 77.1 ± 4.0 | 148 ± 11 | 0.44 ± 0.06# | 2.44 ± 0.10*# |
| HG‐500 | 0.38 ± 0.04# | 70.3 ± 6.0# | 70.3 ± 2.7*# | 143 ± 10# | 0.39 ± 0.03# | 1.99 ± 0.09*# |
Values are mean ± standard deviation of six rats of the same group.
Abbreviations: ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AP, alkaline phosphatase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BT, bilirubin total; G‐250 and G‐500, ginger 250 and 500 mg/kg BW; H‐250 and H‐500, hibiscus 250 and 500 mg/kg BW; HFSDC, high‐fat and sugar diet control; HG‐250 and HG‐500, hibiscus:ginger (3:1) 250 and 500 mg/kg BW; NC, normal control; PC, positive control; SC, serum creatinine.
*Significant (p ≤ .05) difference compared with NC.
#Significant (p ≤ .05) difference compared with HFSDC among all the groups.
Effect of herbal tea and orlistat treatment on the oxidative stress parameters of different groups of obesity rat model
| Groups | MDA (nmol/L) | SOD (U/ml) | GSH (mg/L) | TAC (mmol/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | 2.73 ± 0.20# | 158.9 ± 8.1# | 160.3 ± 11.0# | 1.93 ± 0.20# |
| HFSDC | 6.97 ± 0.41* | 120.4 ± 9.0* | 123.2 ± 10.0* | 1.36 ± 0.09* |
| PC | 3.21 ± 0.18*# | 137.1 ± 7.7* | 148.9 ± 9.31# | 1.71 ± 0.19# |
| H‐250 | 3.34 ± 0.32*# | 135.0 ± 9.4* | 161.1 ± 10.8# | 1.68 ± 0.09# |
| H‐500 | 3.19 ± 0.19*# | 139.3 ± 8.3*# | 167.6 ± 10.0# | 1.83 ± 0.16# |
| G‐250 | 3.41 ± 0.24*# | 129.1 ± 9.5* | 146.3 ± 9.01# | 1.49 ± 0.08* |
| G−500 | 3.29 ± 0.38*# | 135.2 ± 9.0* | 158.9 ± 13.7# | 1.68 ± 0.18# |
| HG‐250 | 3.32 ± 0.21*# | 136.7 ± 9.6* | 145.8 ± 9.13# | 1.71 ± 0.20# |
| HG‐500 | 3.17 ± 0.27*# | 142.2 ± 8.2# | 161.4 ± 10.7# | 1.87 ± 0.19# |
Abbreviations: G‐250 and G‐500, ginger 250 and 500 mg/kg BW; GSH, reduced glutathione; H‐250 and H‐500, hibiscus 250 and 500 mg/kg BW; HFSDC, high‐fat and sugar diet control; HG‐250 and HG‐500, hibiscus:ginger (3:1) 250 and 500 mg/kg BW; MDA, malondialdehyde; NC, normal control; PC, positive control; SOD, superoxide dismutase; TAC, total antioxidant capacity.
*Significant (p ≤ .05) difference compared with NC.
#Significant (p ≤ .05) difference compared with HFSDC among all the groups.
FIGURE 3Histopathological microscopic image showing the morphological changes of (a) liver and (b) kidney of different rat groups. G‐250 and G‐500, ginger 250 and 500 mg/kg BW; H‐250 and H‐500, hibiscus 250 and 500 mg/kg BW; HFSDC, high‐fat diet control; NC, normal control; PC, positive control