| Literature DB >> 35685725 |
Mohsina Patwekar1, Faheem Patwekar1, Amine Mezni2, Syed Sanaullah1, Shaikh Rohin Fatema1, Ustad Almas1, Irfan Ahmad3, Vineet Tirth4, Jewel Mallick5.
Abstract
The present study aims to prepare a polyherbal formulation (PHF) of Azadirachta indica (Neem), Aloe barbadensis (Aloe vera), Allium sativum (garlic), Acacia arabica (Babul), and Aegle marmelos (Bel) and evaluation of antidiabetic and antioxidant activity utilizing the in vitro model. Air-dried powder of 5 medicinal plants, which are divided into equal portions, and PHF, is prepared by the soxhlet technique using polar and nonpolar solvents. The PHF is screened for the phytochemical screening, and then the antidiabetic activity is determined by alpha-amylase inhibition. The extracts thus obtained are also subjected to the inhibition assay by the use of (DNS) dinitro salicylic acid. The antioxidant activity was determined by the DPPH radical scavenging assay, H2O2 scavenging assay, and TBARS assay. In in vitro study, the result revealed polyherbal formulation in which hot water extract has the topmost inhibitory effect on alpha-amylase activity, ranging from 20.4% to 79.5% with an IC50 value of 48.98 ± 0.31 μg/ml. This extract clearly showed the effective lowering of postprandial hypertriglyceridemia (PPHG). In the antioxidant activity carried out by using the (DPPH) radical scavenging assay, the highest result was obtained by the concentration of 250 μg/ml, which was around 77.2 ± 0.05 with statistical significance compared with control (a: p < 0.01; b: p < 0.001), while in the GTA method, the highest result was obtained by the concentration of 250 μg/ml, which was around 78.2 ± 0.05, and in the case of the TBARS assay, the concentration of 250 μg/ml gave around 76.2 ± 0.03 anti-oxidant value. In conclusion, the study shows that polyherbal formulation has superior antidiabetic activity and antioxidant properties.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35685725 PMCID: PMC9173977 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7153526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Figure 1(a) Azadirachta indica (neem), (b) Aloe barbadensis (Aloe vera), (c) Allium sativum (garlic), (d) Acacia arabica (babul), and (e) Aegle marmelos (bel).
The herbal plant composition is listed.
| Plant name | Synonyms | Family | Parts of a plant used | Mass (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Neem | Maliaceae | Leaves | 25 |
|
| Aloe vera | Liliaceae | Gel | 25 |
|
| Garlic | Amaryllidaceae | Rhizome | 25 |
|
| Babul | Fabaceace | Seeds | 25 |
|
| Bel or bilva | Rutaceae | Leaves | 25 |
Qualitative phytochemical screening.
| Test | Hexane extract | Chloroform extract | Benzene | Ethanol extract | Cold water extract | Hot water extract |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbohydrate | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Glycosides | + | + | + | − | + | + |
| Alkaloids | − | − | − | − | − | + |
| Steroids | + | + | + | − | + | − |
| Terpenoids | − | − | − | + | − | + |
| Flavonoids | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Phenol | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Tannins | − | − | − | + (G) | − | + (G) |
| Saponins | − | − | − | + | − | − |
where + sign indicates present, − sign indicates absent, and G indicates green colour.
IC50 value of acarbose on alpha-amylase inhibition.
| Standard drug | Concentration | % inhibition | IC50 value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acarbose | 10 | 15.65 | 90.35 ± 0.20 |
| 20 | 19.42 | ||
| 40 | 26.33 | ||
| 60 | 35.27 | ||
| 80 | 45.60 | ||
| 100 | 55.30 |
Figure 2Acarbose % inhibition.
PHF showing maximum effects (hot water extract).
| Polyherbal formulation | Extract | Concentration | % inhibition | IC50 value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHF | Hot water extract | 10 | 20.4 | 48.98 ± 0.31 |
| 20 | 38.2 | |||
| 40 | 47.1 | |||
| 60 | 56.7 | |||
| 80 | 67.7 | |||
| 100 | 79.5 |
Figure 3PHF showing maximum effects (hot water extract).
PHF showing moderate inhibitory effect (ethanol extract).
| Polyherbal formulation (PHF) | Extract | Concentration | % inhibition | IC50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHF | Ethanol extract | 10 | 14.6 | 69.42 ± 0.25 |
| 20 | 23.5 | |||
| 60 | 30.2 | |||
| 80 | 39.6 | |||
| 100 | 68.6 |
PHF showing moderate inhibitory effect (cold water extract).
| Polyherbal formulation (PHF) | Extract | Concentration | % inhibition | IC50 value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Cold water |
|
| 90.55 ± 0.35 |
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
PHF showing moderate inhibitory effect (benzene extract).
| Polyherbal formulation (PHF) | Extract | Concentration | % inhibition | IC50 value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHF | Benzene |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
PHF showing moderate inhibitory effect (hexane Extract).
| Polyherbal formulation (PHF) | Extract | Concentration | % inhibition | IC50 value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHF | Hexane |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
Figure 4PHF showing moderate inhibitory effect (ethanol extract).
Figure 5PHF showing moderate inhibitory effect (cold water extract).
Figure 6PHF showing moderate inhibitory effect (benzene extract).
Figure 7PHF showing moderate inhibitory effect (hexane extract).
Figure 8(a) PHF showing the DPPH radical scavenging activity. (b) PHF showing H2O2 decomposition activity (GTA method). (c) PHF showing dose dependent antioxidant activity (TBARS method).
PHF showing the DPPH radical scavenging activity.
| Concentration | % inhibition ± SD | |
|---|---|---|
| Ascorbic acid | PHF | |
| 50 | 50 ± 0.01a | 46.1 ± 0.025b |
| 100 | 61.5 ± 0.05b | 57.1 ± 0.02a |
| 150 | 70.1 ± 0.1a | 63.2 ± 0.01b |
| 200 | 78.2 ± 0.02b | 72.3 ± 0.02a |
| 250 | 81.2 ± 0.5b | 77.2 ± 0.05b |
Each value represents the mean ± SD, statistical significance compared with control (a: p < 0.01; b: p < 0.001).
PHF showing H2O2 decomposition activity (GTA method).
| Concentration | % inhibition ± SD | |
|---|---|---|
| Ascorbic acid | PHF | |
| 50 |
|
|
| 100 |
|
|
| 150 |
|
|
| 200 |
|
|
| 250 |
|
|
Each value represents the mean ± SD, statistical significance compared with control (a: p < 0.01; b: p < 0.001).
PHF showing dose-dependent antioxidant activity (TBARS method).
| Concentration | % inhibition ± SD | |
|---|---|---|
| Ascorbic acid | PHF | |
| 50 | 17.2 ± 0.02a | 28.3 ± 0.02b |
| 100 | 45.2 ± 0.03b | 39.2 ± 0.03a |
| 150 | 59.3 ± 0.04a | 46.2 ± 0.04b |
| 200 | 78.2 ± 0.03b | 61.1 ± 0.02a |
| 250 | 85.1 ± 0.04 b | 76.2 ± 0.03b |
Each value represents the mean ± SD, statistical significance compared with control (a: p < 0.01; b: p < 0.001).