| Literature DB >> 35337087 |
Ibrahim Mssillou1, Abdelkrim Agour1, Meryem Slighoua2, Mohamed Chebaibi3, Fatima Ez-Zahra Amrati2, Samar Zuhair Alshawwa4, Omkulthom Al Kamaly4, Abdelfattah El Moussaoui2, Badiaa Lyoussi1, Elhoussine Derwich1,5.
Abstract
Burns constitute a major challenge in medical science, and plants can be part of the solution. Dittrichia viscosa L. (Asteraceae) and Marrubium vulgare L. (Lamiaceae) are widely used in Moroccan traditional medicine to treat several diseases and possess high potency to cure wounds. This study aimed to investigate in vivo the analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and burn-healing effects of both plants and their mixture. The hydro-ethanolic extract of both plants was analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography with diode-array detection (HPLC-DAD). Burns were conducted on dorsal part of rats, and the wound healing process was evaluated during 21 days. Gallic acid, caffeic acid, ferulic acid, and quercetin were identified in M. vulgare extract. The analysis recorded the presence of caffeic acid, rosmarinic acid, rutin, and quercetin in D. viscosa. The group treated with the mixture showed the lowest abdominal contractions (30.4 ± 7.52) with the highest percentage of inhibition (69.12 ± 7.04%). The inhibition of paw inflammation for M. vulgare was 47.65%, followed by D. viscosa (33.86%) and the mixture (30.41%). The mixture showed the highest wound contraction at day 7 (33.16 ± 14.33%) and day 14 (87.54 ± 3.98%). D. viscosa showed the highest wound contraction on the 21st day (99.28 ± 0.44%). In conclusion, both plants and their combination showed promising results for burn healing.Entities:
Keywords: D. viscosa; M. vulgare; analgesic; anti-inflammatory; wound healing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35337087 PMCID: PMC8954364 DOI: 10.3390/ph15030289
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8247
Figure 1HPLC-DAD chromatogram of M. vulgare hydro-ethanolic extract. (1) Gallic acid, (2) Caffeic acid, (3) Ferulic acid, (4) Quercetin.
Figure 2HPLC-DAD chromatogram of D. viscosa hydro-ethanolic extract. (1) Caffeic acid, (2) Rosmarinic acid, (3) Rutin, (4) Quercetin.
Phenolic compounds identified in D. viscosa and M. vulgare with their retention time (RT).
| Phenolic Compounds | Formula | RT (min) |
|---|---|---|
| Gallic acid | C7H6O5 | 4.69 |
| Caffeic acid | C9H8O4 | 7.777 |
| Rosmarinic acid | C18H16O8 | 8.300 |
| Ferulic acid | C10H10O4 | 8.40 |
| Rutin | C27H30O16 | 9.027 |
| Quercetin | C15H10O7 | 9.403 |
Figure 3Analgesic effect of hydro-ethanolic extracts from D. viscosa, M. vulgare, and their mixture compared with the control groups. (A) Number of abdominal contractions. (B) Inhibition of abdominal contractions in the treated groups. Different letters above bars indicate significant difference at p < 0.05 between treated groups (ANOVA one-way followed by Tukey test). The data represent the mean ± SD.
Rats paw diameter (cm) of treated groups and the control (NaCl 0.9%) before the injection of carrageenan and at 3 h, 4 h, 5 h, and 6 h after the injection.
| Diameter in cm | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | 0 h | 3 h | 4 h | 5 h | 6 h |
| NaCl 0.9% | 2.16 ± 0.04 | 2.92 ± 0.07 a | 3.04 ± 0.11 a | 2.82 ± 0.06 a | 2.74 ± 0.04 a |
|
| 2.22 ± 0.14 | 2.58 ± 0.10 b | 2.82 ± 0.10 a,b | 2.62 ± 0.14 a,b | 2.36 ± 0.07 b |
|
| 2.26 ± 0.12 | 2.54 ± 0.08 b | 2.68 ± 0.10 b | 2.50 ± 0.12 b | 2.32 ± 0.10 b |
| Mixture | 2.02 ± 0.03 | 2.44 ± 0.08 b,c | 2.66 ± 0.15 b | 2.56 ± 0.08 b | 2.18 ± 0.09 b |
| Indomethacin | 2.28 ± 0.05 | 2.68 ± 0.05 b,d | 2.74 ± 0.04 b | 2.54 ± 0.07 b | 2.30 ± 0.06 b |
Values in the same column from the third hour with a different letter above indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05 in one-way ANOVA analysis, followed by Tukey’s test. The data represent the mean ± SD.
Figure 4Effect of different hydro-ethanolic extracts administered orally on carrageenan-induced edema in rats. The percentage of inhibition concerning the circumference in the right paw of rats. The data represent the mean ± SD.
Wound size in cm2 of each group of rats from day 1 till day 21.
| Wound Size in cm2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatments | Day 1 | Day 7 | Day 14 | Day 21 |
| 1.73 ± 0.16 a | 1.43 ± 0.4 a | 0.31 ± 0.08 b | 0.01 ± 0.005 c | |
| 2.58 ± 0.48 a | 1.91 ± 0.48 a | 0.39 ± 0.2 b | 0.07 ± 0.16 c | |
| Mixture (10%) | 2.31 ± 0.4 a | 1.51 ± 0.25 a | 0.3 ± 0.16 b | 0.05 ± 0.09 c |
| Madecassol (1%) | 1.45 ± 0.55 a | 1.08 ± 0.19 a | 0.57 ± 0.17 b | 0.15 ± 0.1 c |
| Negative control | 1.85 ± 0.6 a | 1.34 ± 0.43 a | 0.68 ± 0.12 b | 0.45 ± 0.08 b |
Values in the same row with a different letter above indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05 in one-way ANOVA analysis, followed by Tukey’s test. The data represent the mean ± SD.
Figure 5Aspect and photographical representation of burn healing process and morphological appearance of the wounds in groups treated with M. vulgare, D. viscosa, the mixture, and the control group from day 1 until day 21.
Figure 6Burn healing effect of D. viscosa, M. vulgare, the mixture applied dermally, the untreated group, and the group treated with Madecassol®. The size of wounds on the first day of the experiment was used as reference. The data represent the mean ± SD.