| Literature DB >> 35697707 |
Armieti Babaiedarzi1, Saba Ghanbari1, Maryam Mehrad Seresht1, Modara Nasiri2,3.
Abstract
One of the factors that causes severe metabolic imbalance and abnormal changes in many tissues, especially in the pancreas, is the pathological disease of diabetes mellitus. Therefore, in this study, the therapeutic effects of Scrophularia striata were investigated using an animal model in the control of diabetic injury and pancreatic complications caused by diabetes. A total of 66 rats (weight 220-250 g) were randomly divided into: Healthy Control group (rats without diabetes receiving Propylene glycol as solvent); Diabetic control group; 3 experimental healthy groups (receiving the extract with doses of 100, 200 and 400 mg/kg bw/day); 3 treatment groups; and3 pretreatment groups. Diabetes was induced in rats by intraperitoneal STZ (60 mg/kg bw). FBS, HbA1c and insulin were measured after 4 weeks. Pdx1 and Ins1 gene expression was assessed by RT-PCR. The histological evaluation was also performed with H&E staining. The data were analyzed by SPSS ver20 using ANOVA and Tukey tests. By treatment with S. striata ethanolic extract, these factors were close to the normal range. The expression of the Pdx1 and Ins1 genes increased in the treated rats with S. striata extract. Analysis of the obtained data indicates the effect of S. striata in improving the complications of diabetes in rats and can be considered for therapeutic purposes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35697707 PMCID: PMC9192607 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-13698-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1The effect of S. striata extracts on Insulin, FBS and HbA1c. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD; n = 6 for each group. 100, S. striata 100 mg/kg bw; 200, S. striata 200 mg/kg bw; 400, S. striata 400 mg/kg bw. Significant differences compared to the Sham and Control groups were shown P ≤ 0.05 *, and P ≤ 0.05**, respectively. ANOVA and Tukey’s were applied to evaluate the data.
PDX1 and Ins1 gene expression in the studied rats.
| Group | Gene expression fold change, median (IQR) | |
|---|---|---|
| PDX1 | Ins1 | |
| Treatment 100 | 0.234 (0.192–0.268) | 0.313 (0.091–0.470) |
| Treatment 200 | 0.435 (0.303–0.590) | 0.535 (0.286–0.774) |
| Treatment 400 | 1.775 (1.113–2.245) | 0.911 (0.650–1.550) |
| Experimental healthy 100 | 0.144 (0.071–0.431) | 0.119 (0.069–0.223) |
| Experimental healthy 200 | 0.283 (0.184–0.511) | 0.225 (0.027–0.341) |
| Experimental healthy 400 | 0.381 (0.333–0.538) | 0.267 (0.175–0.558) |
| Pretreatment 100 | 0.287 (0.171–0.405) | 0.211 (0.024–0.335) |
| Pretreatment 200 | 0.401 (0.239–0.588) | 0.283 (0.185–0.465) |
| Pretreatment 400 | 0.887 (0.611–0.936) | 0.610 (0.412–0.794) |
| Sham | 0.146 (0.077–0.238) | 0.122 (0.030–0.181) |
| Control | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) |
Pairwise comparison of PDX1 expression between groups based on Mann–Whitney.
| Treatment 100 | Treatment 200 | Treatment 400 | Experimental healthy 100 | Experimental healthy 200 | Experimental healthy 400 | Pretreatment 100 | Pretreatment 200 | Pretreatment 400 | Sham | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment 100 | – | 0.055 | 0.004 | 0.522 | 0.522 | 0.006 | 0.522 | 0.055 | 0.004 | 0.150 | 0.002 |
| Treatment 200 | 0.055 | – | 0.004 | 0.200 | 0.337 | 0.810 | 0.150 | 1.000 | 0.010 | 0.078 | 0.002 |
| Treatment 400 | 0.004 | 0.004 | – | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.010 | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Experimental healthy 100 | 0.522 | 0.200 | 0.004 | – | 0.200 | 0.109 | 0.423 | 0.109 | 0.006 | 0.873 | 0.002 |
| Experimental healthy 200 | 0.522 | 0.337 | 0.004 | 0.200 | – | 0.200 | 0.873 | 0.522 | 0.006 | 0.055 | 0.002 |
| Experimental healthy 400 | 0.006 | 0.810 | 0.004 | 0.109 | 0.200 | – | 0.200 | 0.873 | 0.010 | 0.025 | 0.002 |
| Pretreatment 100 | 0.522 | 0.150 | 0.004 | 0.423 | 0.873 | 0.200 | – | 0.200 | 0.004 | 0.150 | 0.002 |
| Pretreatment 200 | 0.055 | 1.000 | 0.004 | 0.109 | 0.522 | 0.873 | 0.200 | – | 0.016 | 0.037 | 0.002 |
| Pretreatment 400 | 0.004 | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.010 | 0.004 | 0.016 | – | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Sham | 0.150 | 0.078 | 0.004 | 0.873 | 0.055 | 0.025 | 0.150 | 0.037 | 0.004 | – | 0.002 |
| Control | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.040 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | – |
Pairwise comparison of Ins1 expression between groups based on Mann–Whitney Test.
| Treatment 100 | Treatment 200 | Treatment 400 | Experimental healthy 100 | Experimental healthy 200 | Experimental healthy 400 | Pretreatment 100 | Pretreatment 200 | Pretreatment 400 | Sham | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment 100 | – | 0.109 | 0.006 | 0.150 | 0.423 | 0.631 | 0.337 | 0.749 | 0.037 | 0.109 | 0.002 |
| Treatment 200 | 0.109 | – | 0.055 | 0.010 | 0.037 | 0.200 | 0.055 | 0.150 | 0.631 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Treatment 400 | 0.006 | 0.055 | – | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.010 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.109 | 0.004 | 0.305 |
| Experimental healthy 100 | 0.150 | 0.010 | 0.004 | – | 0.522 | 0.078 | 0.522 | 0.037 | 0.004 | 0.749 | 0.002 |
| Experimental healthy 200 | 0.423 | 0.037 | 0.004 | 0.522 | – | 0.337 | 0.749 | 0.262 | 0.006 | 0.337 | 0.002 |
| Experimental healthy 400 | 0.631 | 0.200 | 0.010 | 0.078 | 0.337 | – | 0.262 | 0.873 | 0.055 | 0.037 | 0.002 |
| Pretreatment 100 | 0.337 | 0.055 | 0.004 | 0.522 | 0.749 | 0.262 | – | 0.262 | 0.004 | 0.337 | 0.002 |
| Pretreatment 200 | 0.749 | 0.150 | 0.006 | 0.037 | 0.262 | 0.873 | 0.262 | – | 0.025 | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Pretreatment 400 | 0.037 | 0.631 | 0.109 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.055 | 0.004 | 0.025 | – | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Sham | 0.109 | 0.010 | 0.004 | 0.749 | 0.337 | 0.037 | 0.337 | 0.016 | 0.004 | – | 0.002 |
| Control | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.305 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | – |
The gene expression was calculated based on fold change by.
ΔCt = Ct (target gene) − Ct (Housekeeping gene).
ΔΔCt = ΔCt (Experimental sample) − ΔCt (Normal sample).
Gene expression = 2 − ΔΔ.
Graph 1The results of gene expression.
Histopathological results in the studied rats.
| Group | Atrophy and fibrosis status | Regeneration status |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment 100 | Negative | Negative |
| Treatment 200 | Negative | Negative |
| Treatment 400 | Negative | Negative |
| Experimental healthy 100 | Negative | Suspicious positive |
| Experimental healthy 200 | Negative | Suspicious positive |
| Experimental healthy 400 | Negative | Suspicious positive |
| Pretreatment 100 | Negative | Negative |
| Pretreatment 200 | Mild | Negative |
| Pretreatment 400 | Negative | Negative |
| Sham | Moderate | Negative |
| Control | Negative | Negative |
Figure 2Histopathological findings of the effects of Scrophularia striata ethanolic extract on pancreas tissues of studied groups. 28 days after the experiment, pancreas tissues samples were evaluated Harris-Eosin hematoxylin staining (A) Sham, (B) Control, (C) Experimental healthy (healthy + Scrophularia striata 400 mg/kg), (D) Pre-treatment (treated before and after STZ injection with S. striata 400 mg/kg), (E) Treatment (diabetic + S. striata 400 mg/kg). No histopathological changes were observed in pancreas tissues with sham (A) and experimental healthy (C) islets of Langerhans (arrows) and ascites is seen in a normal pattern. In the control group (B) degeneration in the cells of the islets of Langerhans (arrows), and atrophy and fibrosis in the structure of the pancreas is shown. In the pre-treatment group (D) normal condition of the ascites is shown. All these lesions were markedly attenuated in S. striata treatment (400 mg/kg) (E) (H&E *200).