| Literature DB >> 35345832 |
Fatma M El-Demerdash1, Yousra Talaat1, Raghda A El-Sayed1, Wenyi Kang2, Nora F Ghanem3.
Abstract
The present research intended to assess the possible protective and hypoglycemic effect of Actinidia deliciosa fruit aqueous extract (ADAE) in diabetic rats. The scavenging antioxidant capabilities of ADAE were evaluated using GC-MS analysis. In addition, rats were divided into four groups: control, ADAE, streptozotocin-induced DM (STZ), and STZ-treated rats + ADAE in an in vivo investigation. GC-MS analysis of ADAE was shown to include major components with high total phenolic contents and high DPPH scavenging activity. In diabetic rats, significant elevation in blood glucose level, lipid peroxidation, bilirubin, and lactate dehydrogenase activity as well as a change in lipid profile was observed, while insulin, body and liver weights, enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants, liver function biomarkers, and protein content were significantly decreased. Furthermore, changes in the expression of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR-γ), apoptotic, and inflammation-related genes were found. In addition, histological differences in rat liver tissue architecture were discovered, corroborating the biochemical modifications. However, consuming ADAE alone reduced lipid peroxidation and improved antioxidant status. Furthermore, diabetic rats given ADAE showed significant reductions in oxidative stress indicators and biochemical parameters, as well as improved tissue structure, when compared to the diabetic rats' group. Also, ADAE supplementation protects diabetic rats' hepatic tissue by upregulating PPAR-γ and downregulating apoptotic and inflammatory-related gene expression. In conclusion, A. deliciosa has beneficial protective effects so, it might be used as a complementary therapy in diabetes mellitus.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35345832 PMCID: PMC8957427 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1499510
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Forward and reverse primer sequence used in RT-PCR.
| Gene | Forward primer | Reverse primer |
|---|---|---|
| Inflammatory-related genes | ||
| IL-1 | CACCTCTCAAGCAGAGCACAG | GGGTTCCATGGTGAAGTCAAC |
| TGF- | AAGAAGTCACCCGCGTGCTA | TGTGTGATGTCTTTGGTTTTGTCA |
| TNF- | GCATGATCCGCGACGTGGAA | AGATCCATGCCGTTGGCCAG |
| NF- | CCTAGCTTTCTCTGAACTGCAAA | GGGTCAGAGGCCAATAGAGA |
| Glycolated-related gene | ||
| TIMP-1 | GGGCTTCACCAAGACCTACA | TGCAGGGGATGGATAAACAG |
| PPAR- | CACGAAGAGCCTTCCAACTC | TATGAGACATCCCCACAGCA |
| Apoptotic-related genes | ||
| Bax | GGACGAACTGGACAGTAACATGG | GCAAAGTAGAAAAGGGCGACAAC |
| Caspase3 | GAAGCGAATCAATGGACTCTGG | GACCGAGATGTCATTCCAGTGC |
| Housekeeping | ||
| GAPDH | GGTGAAGGTCGGAGTCAACG | TGAAGGGGTCATTGATGGCAAC |
Figure 1GC-MS chromatogram of A. deliciosa fruit aqueous extract.
Major components found in A. deliciosa extract according to the retention time.
| No. | Compound name | Molecular formula | Molecular weight | RT | KI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Methyl ethanoate | C3H6O2 | 74 | 19.95 | 832 |
| 2 | Methyl butanoate | C5H10O2 | 102 | 27.35 | 987 |
| 3 |
| C10H16 | 136 | 34.42 | 982 |
| 4 | Toluene | C7H8 | 92 | 37.72 | 1036 |
| 5 | Ethyl butanoate | C6H12O2 | 116 | 38.43 | 1040 |
| 6 | Phytol | C20H40O | 256 | 39.96 | 930 |
| 7 | Hexanal | C6H12O | 100 | 40.28 | 1081 |
| 8 | Vitamin E | C29H50O2 | 430 | 42.90 | 1040 |
| 9 | Oleic acid | C6H12O6 | 282 | 47.56 | 1179 |
| 10 | ᾅ-Terpineol | C10H18O | 154 | 49.23 | 1198 |
| 11 | Ascorbic acid | C38H68O8 | 652 | 50.44 | 1270 |
RT: retention time; KI: retention index: Kovats retention index.
Body and liver weights, blood glucose, and insulin levels in different groups.
| Parameters | Control | ADAE | STZ | STZ + ADAE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose (mg/dl) | 108 ± 2.70c | 101 ± 3.12c | 356 ± 9.82a | 195 ± 5.60b |
| Insulin hormone ( | 11.43 ± 0.352a | 10.93 ± 0.281a | 6.52 ± 0.217c | 9.38 ± 0.170b |
| Initial body weight (g) | 155 ± 2.69 | 159 ± 3.02 | 156 ± 2.61 | 155 ± 2.16 |
| Final body weight (g) | 217 ± 2.24a | 224 ± 4.67a | 174 ± 3.82c | 198 ± 3.82b |
| Weight gain (g) | 62 ± 4.21a | 65 ± 5.96a | 18 ± 3.97c | 42 ± 2.78b |
| Liver weight (g) | 6.65 ± 0.254a | 6.91 ± 0.275a | 4.78 ± 0.126c | 5.76 ± 0.109b |
| Liver/body weight ratio | 3.06 ± 0.089a | 3.10 ± 0.190a | 2.76 ± 0.117b | 2.92 ± 0.096a |
Values are expressed as means ± SE (n = 6). Values within a row not sharing a common superscript letter were significantly different. Statistically significant variations are compared: ADAE and STZ groups compared vs. control while STZ + ADAE group compared vs. STZ group. Weight gain = Final body weight–Initial body weight. Liver − body weight ratio = (Liver weight/body weight × 100).
Oxidative stress markers in different groups.
| Parameters | Control | ADAE | STZ | STZ + ADAE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBARS (nmol/g tissue) | 29.64 ± 0.99c | 22.54 ± 0.842d | 42.85 ± 1.527a | 35.46 ± 1.437b |
| H2O2 ( | 68.52 ± 2.5c | 54.04 ± 2.15d | 97.89 ± 287a | 86.35 ± 2.57b |
| GSH (mmol/mg protein) | 2.17 ± 0.07b | 2.60 ± 0.11a | 1.18 ± 0.04d | 1.56 ± 0.05c |
| SOD (U/mg protein) | 76.55 ± 2.404b | 92.39 ± 2.29a | 39.51 ± 1.497d | 60.66 ± 1.891c |
| CAT ( | 42.73 ± 1.62b | 51.10 ± 1.22a | 23.13 ± 0.82d | 32.25 ± 0.87c |
| GST ( | 1.10 ± 0.039b | 1.28 ± 0.0508a | 0.6013 ± 0.0219d | 0.79 ± 0.0302c |
| GPx (U/mg protein) | 0.93 ± 0.03b | 1.09 ± 0.037a | 0.56 ± 0.02d | 0.74 ± 0.028c |
| GR (U/mg protein) | 1.22 ± 0.044b | 1.44 ± 0.049a | 0.67 ± 0.023d | 0.89 ± 0.031c |
Values are expressed as means ± SE (n = 6). Values within a row not sharing a common superscript letter were significantly different. Statistically significant variations are compared: ADAE and STZ groups compared vs. control while STZ + ADAE group compared vs. STZ group.
Liver function biomarkers and lipid profile in different groups.
| Parameters | Control | ADAE | STZ | STZ + ADAE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AST (U/mg protein) | 90 ± 1.08a | 95 ± 3.02a | 59 ± 1.84c | 72 ± 2.53b |
| ALT (U/mg protein) | 124 ± 4.93a | 134 ± 4.64a | 84 ± 3.11c | 100 ± 3.07b |
| ALP (U/mg protein) | 325 ± 11.41a | 311 ± 11.70a | 203 ± 7.16c | 258 ± 9.97b |
| LDH (U/mg protein) | 811 ± 25.91c | 713 ± 25.60d | 1128 ± 31.72a | 950 ± 34.99b |
| Protein (mg/g tissue) | 193 ± 7.30a | 203 ± 8.55a | 125 ± 4.58c | 150 ± 4.99b |
| Total bilirubin (mg/dl) | 0.763 ± 0.032c | 0.740 ± 0.022c | 1.01 ± 0.034a | 0.885 ± 0.023b |
| TC (mg/dl) | 144 ± 4.87c | 120 ± 4.50d | 200 ± 7.19a | 171 ± 5.91b |
| LDL (mg/dl) | 49.04 ± 1.98c | 44.72 ± 1.59c | 68.16 ± 1.75a | 58.88 ± 1.97b |
| HDL (mg/dl) | 42.87 ± 2.01b | 47.50 ± 1.41a | 26.77 ± 1.13d | 34.30 ± 1.09c |
| TG (mg/dl) | 107 ± 4.04c | 88 ± 2.07d | 146 ± 5.45a | 129 ± 5.23b |
| VLDL (mg/dl) | 21.47 ± 0.81c | 17.53 ± 0.41d | 29.17 ± 1.09a | 25.76 ± 1.05b |
Values are expressed as means ± SE (n = 6). Values within a row not sharing a common superscript letter were significantly different. Statistically significant variations are compared: ADAE and STZ groups compared vs. control while STZ + ADAE group compared vs. STZ group.
Figure 2Effect of STZ and ADAE on the expression of liver PPAR-γ and antimigratory-related gene (TIMP-1 gene) by qRT-PCR. Data were normalized to the housekeeping gene (GAPDH) and are expressed as the mean fold change ± SEM. Samples were run in triplicate in three independent experiments. Groups with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.
Figure 3Effect of STZ and ADAE on the expression of inflammatory-related genes (IL-1β, TNF-α, NF-κB, and TGF-β1) in the liver. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. Samples were run in triplicate in three independent experiments. Groups with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.
Figure 4Effect of STZ and ADAE on the expression of liver apoptosis-related genes ((a) Bax; (b) caspase3 (Cas3)) by qRT-PCR. Data were normalized to the housekeeping gene (GAPDH) and are expressed as the mean fold change ± SEM. Samples were run in triplicate in three independent experiments. Groups with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.
Figure 5Photomicrographs of liver sections in different groups. Control (G1, (a)) and ADAE (G2, (b)) rats revealed the normal histological structures of hepatocytes (H) with nuclei (N), central vein (CV), sinusoids (S), Kupffer cells (K), branches of the hepatic portal vein (PV) and hepatic artery (arrow), and bile duct (B). Diabetic rats (G3, (c, d)) showed marked dilation and hemorrhage (H). The proliferating hepatocytes appear as normal architecture with round nuclei with vacuolated (V) and homogenous cytoplasm and few necrotic hepatocytes (NH). Also, crowded hepatocytes with hyperchromatic nuclei (HN) with eosinophilic cells as well as some area necrotic hepatocytes (NC), mild dilation of the portal tract (PT) with infiltrating lymphocytes (L), and migrated macrophage cells were observed. Diabetic rats supplemented with ADAE (G4, (e)) showed regenerative hepatocytes with rounded nuclei and few necrotic hepatocytes (NA), marked dilation of the sinusoid (S), and proliferating epithelial cells of the bile duct (BD) (H&E stain, 40x).
Histological score in the liver.
| Control | ADAE | STZ | STZ + ADAE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Necrotic hepatocytes | - | - | + | + |
| Hyperchromatic nuclei | - | - | +++ | + |
| Vacuolation (infiltration) | - | - | ++ | + |
| Hemorrhage | - | - | + | - |
–: no lesion; +: mild; ++: moderate; +++: high.