| Literature DB >> 36081821 |
Ankit Kumar1, Anoop Singh Negi2, Ashutosh Chauhan3, Ravindra Semwal1, Rajnish Kumar2, Ruchi Badoni Semwal4, Randhir Singh5,6, Tushar Joshi7, Subhash Chandra8, Sunil Kumar Joshi9, Deepak Kumar Semwal10.
Abstract
Background and aim: The ingredients viz., Artemisia roxburghiana, Cissampelos pareira, Stephania glabra, Drimia indica, Roylea cinerea, Tinospora sinensis and Curcuma longa of the present formulation are used to treat diabetes in the Indian traditional medical system. Adopting the concept of multiple herbal mixtures for better therapeutic effects from the ancient Ayurvedic text Sarangdhar Samhita, the present study aimed to develop a polyherbal formulation (PHF) of seven herbs and to evaluate its sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT2) inhibitory effect on type 2 diabetic rats. Experimental procedure: Streptozotocin (STZ) (60 mg/kg) and nicotinamide (NAM) (120 mg/kg) were intraperitoneally administered to induce type 2 diabetes in Wistar rats. The animals were divided into 5 groups viz. normal control, diabetic control, positive control (dapagliflozin at 0.1 mg/kg) and two test groups (PHF at 250 and 500 mg/kg). Various parameters including blood glucose, serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase (SGPT), serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT), bilirubin, triglycerides and creatinine were measured. Results and conclusion: The treatment with PHF (250 and 500 mg/kg) showed a significant (p < 0.05) decrease in blood glucose levels by 56.37% and 58.17%, respectively. The levels of SGOT, SGPT and bilirubin were significantly reduced in PHF-fed diabetic rats. Histopathological examination revealed no major changes in the treated groups as compared to the normal control. The molecular docking study showed strong binding of β-sitosterol, insulanoline, warifteine, dehydrocorydalmine, taraxerol acetate, lupeol, corydalmine and luteolin to SGLT2 protein. The present study concludes that PHF has promising antidiabetic activity via inhibiting SGLT2 protein without showing any adverse effects.Entities:
Keywords: Diabetes mellitus; Histopathology; Liver function test; Molecular docking; Polyherbal formulation; SGLT2 protein
Year: 2022 PMID: 36081821 PMCID: PMC9446025 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcme.2022.03.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Tradit Complement Med ISSN: 2225-4110
Fig. 1Effect of PHF on blood glucose level of rats. G1NC (normal control group), G2DC (diabetic control group), standard group (G3S), test group 1 (G4T1) and test group 2 (G5T2); (∗) shows significance level with p value of <0.05 when compared to G2DC.
Effect of PHF on liver function in experimental rats.
| Day | G1NC | G2DC | G3S | G4T1 | G5T2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basal (0) Day | 28.40 ± 4.69 | 32.10 ± 5.35 | 34.69 ± 3.25 | 32.25 ± 6.16 | 37.28 ± 0.49 |
| 7th Day | 31.54 ± 5.77 | 41.77 ± 9.79 | 43.30 ± 7.27 | 36.86 ± 5.29 | 47.14 ± 8.92 |
| 14th Day | 31.45 ± 5.05 | 76.02 ± 16.54 | 87.51 ± 12.30 | 54.16 ± 7.80 | 58.75 ± 7.68 |
| 21st Day | 33.78 ± 4.74 | 119.53 ± 8.44 | 60.76 ± 5.13∗ | 47.28 ± 15.81∗ | 53.51 ± 13.84∗ |
| 28th Day | 32.49 ± 3.36 | 98.64 ± 11.80 | 40.28 ± 15.03∗ | 40.39 ± 6.84∗ | 48.31 ± 7.45∗ |
| Basal (0) Day | 89.10 ± 5.60 | 92.82 ± 10.97 | 103.47 ± 12.56 | 101.48 ± 14.86 | 89.09 ± 4.63 |
| 7th Day | 86.95 ± 7.84 | 129.61 ± 6.72 | 119.05 ± 33.85 | 116.36 ± 8.33 | 112.38 ± 3.40 |
| 14th Day | 92.82 ± 10.37 | 169.17 ± 8.87 | 140.74 ± 8.26 | 137.20 ± 7.92 | 113.84 ± 10.44∗ |
| 21st Day | 86.03 ± 12.70 | 147.52 ± 15.57 | 138.70 ± 13.21 | 123.69 ± 13.05 | 101.70 ± 5.89∗ |
| 28th Day | 81.33 ± 10.25 | 181.20 ± 7.29 | 119.72 ± 9.46∗ | 115.34 ± 14.68∗ | 118.35 ± 8.37∗ |
| Basal (0) Day | 0.66 ± 0.14 | 0.79 ± 0.16 | 0.62 ± 0.10 | 0.83 ± 0.09 | 0.88 ± 0.10 |
| 7th Day | 0.87 ± 0.35 | 0.94 ± 0.16 | 0.86 ± 0.22 | 0.91 ± 0.30 | 0.92 ± 0.13 |
| 14th Day | 0.68 ± 0.10 | 0.82 ± 0.22 | 0.73 ± 0.18 | 0.89 ± 0.09 | 0.84 ± 0.09 |
| 21st Day | 0.88 ± 0.06 | 0.94 ± 0.09 | 0.53 ± 0.07∗ | 0.71 ± 0.08∗ | 0.77 ± 0.23∗ |
| 28th Day | 0.87 ± 0.08 | 1.03 ± 0.22 | 0.69 ± 0.46∗ | 0.79 ± 0.30∗ | 0.88 ± 0.32∗ |
G1NC (normal control group), G2DC (diabetic control group), standard group (G3S), test group 1 (G4T1) and test group 2 (G5T2); (∗) Shows significance level with p value of <0.05 when compared to G2DC.
Effect of PHF on lipid profile of experimental rats.
| Day | G1NC | G2DC | G3S | G4T1 | G5T2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cholesterol (mg/dL) | |||||
| Basal (0) Day | 36.64 ± 8.83 | 40.52 ± 4.79 | 45.15 ± 3.46 | 39.81 ± 6.90 | 38.46 ± 9.06 |
| 7th Day | 41.56 ± 4.77 | 43.06 ± 1.68 | 46.76 ± 5.40 | 50.5 ± 10.98 | 43.79 ± 4.98 |
| 14th Day | 41.37 ± 5.31 | 83.28 ± 9.65 | 59.85 ± 11.49∗ | 44.13 ± 11.69∗ | 45.39 ± 7.64∗ |
| 21st Day | 37.51 ± 4.81 | 74.81 ± 15.99 | 59.86 ± 11.98 | 44.7 ± 5.27∗ | 48.00 ± 6.92∗ |
| 28th Day | 36.79 ± 12.23 | 80.05 ± 4.72 | 56.67 ± 7.29∗ | 40.9 ± 3.59∗ | 45.02 ± 11.02∗ |
| Basal (0) Day | 37.61 ± 5.32 | 37.13 ± 2.89 | 34.81 ± 8.94 | 40.61 ± 7.00 | 47.11 ± 57.55 |
| 7th Day | 37.81 ± 14.86 | 42.56 ± 9.24 | 48.07 ± 13.58 | 43.74 ± 7.39 | 42.87 ± 3.27 |
| 14th Day | 44.58 ± 18.51 | 45.84 ± 10.95 | 42.30 ± 17.55 | 49.62 ± 22.68 | 41.13 ± 17.62 |
| 21st Day | 40.68 ± 15.58 | 80.24 ± 22.12 | 48.47 ± 21.23∗ | 42.55 ± 30.34∗ | 48.20 ± 12.40∗ |
| 28th Day | 47.92 ± 7.80 | 86.86 ± 13.15 | 42.06 ± 16.00∗ | 44.47 ± 12.43∗ | 40.74 ± 9.17∗ |
G1NC (normal control group), G2DC (diabetic control group), standard group (G3S), test group 1 (G4T1) and test group 2 (G5T2); (∗) Shows significance level with p value of <0.05 when compared to G2DC.
Effect of PHF on renal function of experimental rats.
| Day | G1NC | G2DC | G3S | G4T1 | G5T2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basal (0) Day | 0.69 ± 0.02 | 0.68 ± 0.02 | 0.70 ± 0.05 | 0.73 ± 0.03 | 0.67 ± 0.06 |
| 7th Day | 0.74 ± 0.14 | 0.73 ± 0.10 | 0.73 ± 0.19 | 0.76 ± 0.10 | 0.69 ± 0.13 |
| 14th Day | 0.66 ± 0.05 | 0.75 ± 0.16 | 0.70 ± 0.04 | 0.74 ± 0.05 | 0.65 ± 0.08 |
| 21st Day | 0.84 ± 0.17 | 0.89 ± 0.19 | 0.80 ± 0.13 | 0.82 ± 0.07 | 0.74 ± 0.12 |
| 28th Day | 0.70 ± 0.02 | 0.85 ± 0.07 | 0.70 ± 0.02 | 0.68 ± 0.05 | 0.68 ± 0.09 |
| Basal (0) Day | 2.26 ± 0.38 | 2.62 ± 0.22 | 2.21 ± 0.65 | 2.46 ± 1.12 | 2.44 ± 0.48 |
| 7th Day | 3.58 ± 1.90 | 3.70 ± 0.79 | 2.81 ± 1.06 | 2.90 ± 1.83 | 3.45 ± 0.72 |
| 14th Day | 2.89 ± 0.78 | 3.38 ± 0.50 | 2.91 ± 0.94 | 2.23 ± 0.49 | 2.93 ± 0.44 |
| 21st Day | 2.87 ± 0.29 | 3.46 ± 0.87 | 2.48 ± 1.08 | 3.21 ± 1.09 | 2.91 ± 0.48 |
| 28th Day | 2.19 ± 0.52 | 2.58 ± 0.61 | 2.48 ± 0.39 | 2.18 ± 0.53 | 2.74 ± 1.10 |
| Basal (0) Day | 82.89 ± 14.28 | 70.40 ± 17.99 | 85.49 ± 12.67 | 81.87 ± 19.22 | 80.27 ± 13.20 |
| 7th Day | 86.12 ± 11.84 | 80.96 ± 3.45 | 111.40 ± 3.67 | 91.87 ± 8.97 | 82.33 ± 6.49 |
| 14th Day | 83.47 ± 6.36 | 80.10 ± 8.80 | 90.43 ± 3.54 | 97.93 ± 1.98 | 88.37 ± 6.71 |
| 21st Day | 82.47 ± 3.18 | 88.87 ± 4.01 | 96.71 ± 8.56 | 97.81 ± 6.71 | 85.80 ± 5.69 |
| 28th Day | 85.87 ± 18.68 | 118.58 ± 18.12 | 99.32 ± 11.11 | 97.55 ± 14.52 | 92.34 ± 7.60 |
G1NC (normal control group), G2DC (diabetic control group), standard group (G3S), test group 1 (G4T1) and test group 2 (G5T2); (∗) Shows significance level with p value of <0.05 when compared to G2DC.
Fig. 2Effect of PHF on LDH level in experimental rats. G1NC (normal control group), G2DC (diabetic control group), standard group (G3S), test group 1 (G4T1) and test group 2 (G5T2); the results were found insignificant when compared to G2DC.
Fig. 3Histopathology of right kidney (KR), left kidney (KL), pancrease (P) and liver (L) of experimental rats. (↓): Mild sinusoidal congestion; (□): mild degenerative changes; (⌂): moderate degenerative changes; (○) high degenerative changes; (◯) depletion of beta cells; (Δ): desquamation of epithelial linings; G1NC (normal control group), G2DC (diabetic control group), standard group (G3S), test group 1 (G4T1) and test group 2 (G5T2); the results were found insignificant when compared to G2DC.
Fig. 4Active sites of SGLT2 protein.
Fig. 52D and 3D molecular docking interactions of bioactive compounds with SGLT2 protein. DS (docking score - kcal/mol), BS (botanical source).