| Literature DB >> 36119803 |
Vinod Kumar Verma1,2, Md Kamaruz Zaman1, Shekhar Verma3, Santosh Kumar Verma4,5, Khomendra Kumar Sarwa6.
Abstract
Objective: Andrographis paniculata is a well-known medicinal plant in Southeast Asia, India and China. The plant contains andrographolide (AN), a very important phytochemical used in various health problems. However, AN is low in oral absorption bioavailability of AN due to the rapid clearance and high protein binding capacity.Entities:
Keywords: Andrographis paniculata (Burm. f.) Nees; andrographolide; hypoglycemic activity; liquid dispersion; nano-phyto vesicle; soya phosphatidylcholine
Year: 2019 PMID: 36119803 PMCID: PMC9476388 DOI: 10.1016/j.chmed.2019.12.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chin Herb Med ISSN: 1674-6384
Fig. 1Chemical structure of andrographolide.
Factorial design selected variable ranges of nano-phyto vesicles formulation.
| Variables | Levels | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Factors (Independent variables) | 100 | 200 | 300 | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Response (dependent variables) | 350 ≤ | |||
| 80 ≤ | ||||
| −25 ≤ | ||||
Note: X1 and X2 is independent variables which affects the desirable responses (dependent variables) of Y1, Y2 and Y3.
Fig. 2HPLC chromatogram of standard AN (A) and semi-purified AN (B).
Experimental runs, independent variables and measured responses of 32 full factorial experimental design.
| Codes | SPC/mg | Ethanol/mL | Particle size/nm | Entrapment efficiency/% | Polydispersity index | Zeta potential/mV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-1 | 100 | 2 | 402.0 ± 2.90 | 84 | 0.235 ± 0.015 | −27.5 |
| F-2 | 200 | 2 | 398.1 ± 2.04 | 82 | 0.245 ± 0.018 | −28.8 |
| F-3 | 300 | 2 | 405.2 ± 3.80 | 83 | 0.255 ± 0.015 | −30.2 |
| F-4 | 100 | 1 | 412.8 ± 5.70 | 82 | 0.253 ± 0.015 | −26.5 |
| F-5 | 200 | 1 | 422.0 ± 4.50 | 83 | 0.260 ± 0.240 | −28.2 |
| F-6 | 300 | 1 | 423.8 ± 1.80 | 86 | 0.336 ± 0.011 | −28.4 |
| F-7 | 100 | 3 | 398.0 ± 2.30 | 79 | 0.247 ± 0.029 | −29.1 |
| F-8 | 200 | 3 | 389.8 ± 11.00 | 75 | 0.251 ± 0.015 | −31.5 |
| F-9 | 300 | 3 | 395.5 ± 5.80 | 79 | 0.238 ± 0.008 | −32.3 |
Note: F1 to F9 is formulation code prepared with different amount of formulation additives and its effects over response particle size, entrapment efficiency, polydispersity index and zeta potential.
Output data of the 32 factorial analysis of all nano-phyto vesicular formulation.
| Responses | Adequate precision | Significant factors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PS | 0.854 | 0.806 | 0.658 | 9.582 | B |
| EE% | 0.643 | 0.524 | 0.227 | 5.358 | B |
| ZP | 0.937 | 0.917 | 0.862 | 18.90 | A & B |
Note: The value of the R2 indicates the precision in reproduction of the results and between predicted and actual response value in actual laboratory conditions.
Composition of optimized formulation (F9) and its response on various physical parameters.
| Variables | Repponses | Predicted values | Observed values |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPC Conc. | Particle size | 394.58 nm | 395.50 nm |
| Ethanol Volume | Entrapment efficiency | 78.94% | 79.00% |
| Zeta potential | −32.10 mV | −32.30 mV |
Fig. 3SEM (A) and TEM (B) micrographs of nano-phyto vesicular optimized formulation.
Fig. 4DSC thermogram (A−E) and FTIR spectrum (B−F) of semi-purified AN extract, SPC and nano-phyto vesicular formulation, respectively.
Fig. 5Cumulative absorption versus time graph of pure AN and nano-phyto-vesicular formulation containing semi-purified AN.
Effects of nano-phyto vesicular formulation (F9) on body weight changes in rats (mean± SEM, n = 6).
| Animal groups | 1 days | 7 days | 14 days | 21 days |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G-I Vehicle control | 193.3 ± 3.29 | 212.8 ± 3.18 | 231.0 ± 2.06 | 239.3 ± 1.54 |
| G-II STZ diabetic control | 193.3 ± 3.16 | 186.3 ± 1.89 | 163.6 ± 2.61 | 148.6 ± 2.52 |
| G-III Std. drug (GLB) | 191.16 ± 2.52 | 197.3 ± 1.35 | 199.1 ± 3.34 | 192.6 ± 2.23 |
| G-IV Pure-AN (50 mg/kg) | 189.0 ± 3.40 | 193.5 ± 2.81 | 192.6 ± 2.23 | 174.6 ± 2.15 |
| G-V Nano-phyto vesicle (25 mg/kg) | 189.83 ± 3.21 | 198.5 ± 2.46 | 195.0 ± 2.89 | 190.8 ± 3.75 |
| G-VI SPC (50 mg/kg) | 191.5 ± 2.47 | 188.3 ± 2.60 | 165.0 ± 2.47 | 156.0 ± 2.47 |
P < 0.05 ⁎⁎P < 0.01 vs vehicle control group I.
P < 0.05 ##P < 0.01 vs STZ diabetic control group II.
P < 0.05 ¤¤P <0.01 compared in between group VI and group IV. Data analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett's Multiple test for comparison.
Effect of nano-phyto vesicular formulation (F9) on blood glucose level (mg/dL) of rats tested by OGTT (mean± SEM, n = 6).
| Animal groups | 0 min | 30 min | 60 min | 90 min | 120 min |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G-I Vehicle Control | 76.6 ± 1.70 | 166.0 ± 4.73 | 138.5 ± 1.83 | 124.3 ± 1.83 | 112.5 ± 2.55 |
| G-II Std. Drug (GLB) | 79.6 ± 2.51 | 151.5 ± 3.27 | 127.6 ± 2.63 | 105.3 ± 1.92 | 87.66 ± 2.06 |
| G-III Pure -AN (50 mg/kg) | 84.8 ± 7.07 | 145.6 ± 2.17 | 137.33 ± 3.79 | 123.5 ± 3.09 | 105.0 ± 3.75 |
| G-IV Nano-phyto vesicle (25 mg/kg) | 76.6 ± 2.38 | 136.3 ± 1.94 | 127.8 ± 2.68 | 110.0 ± 2.74 | 89.5 ± 2.65 |
| G-V SPC (50 mg/kg) | 76.1 ± 2.32 | 149.6 ± 3.37 | 140.3 ± 2.01 | 124.0 ± 2.50 | 114.6 ± 2.72 |
P < 0.05 ⁎⁎P < 0.01 vs vehicle group I.
P < 0.05 ##P < 0.01 vs standard drug (GLB) group II. Data analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett's Multiple test for comparison.
Effect of nano-phyto vesicular formulation (F9) over Blood glucose level (mg/dl) of STZ-induced diabetic rats (mean± SEM, n = 6).
| Animal groups | 1 days | 7 days | 14 days | 21 days |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G-I Vehicle Control | 78.6 ± 3.07 | 77.3 ± 2.41 | 76.6 ± 2.36 | 71.3 ± 2.61 |
| G-II STZ Diabetic Control | 309.5 ± 2.77 | 297.8 ± 2.91 | 311.3 ± 3.08 | 283.3 ± 4.46 |
| G-III Std. Drug (GLB) | 311.3 ± 2.81 | 230.8 ± 3.63 | 128.5 ± 3.56 | 86.0 ± 4.69 |
| G-IV Pure- AN (50 mg/kg) | 313.0 ± 3.10 | 237.1 ± 2.96 | 168.5 ± 4.00 | 102.0 ± 4.01 |
| G-V Nano-phyto vesicle (25 mg/kg) | 309.1 ± 3.19 | 217.0 ± 2.68 | 131.1 ± 3.53 | 87.3 ± 3.32 |
| G-VI SPC (50 mg/kg) | 316.8 ± 4.46 | 303.5 ± 3.75 | 287.8 ± 3.49 | 281.5 ± 3.47 |
P < 0.05 ⁎⁎P < 0.01 vs vehicle group I.
P < 0.05 ##P < 0.01 vs STZ diabetic control group II.
P < 0.05 ¤¤P < 0.01 compared in between group VI and group IV. Data analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett's Multiple test for comparison.
Effect of nano-phyto vesicular formulation (F9) over serum lipid profile in STZ-induced diabetic rats (mean± SEM, n = 6).
| Animal groups | HDL/(mg•dL−1) | LDL/(mg•dL−1) | Total cholesterol/(mg•dL−1) | TG/(mg•dL−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G-I Vehicle Control | 37.33 ± 2.41 | 38.67 ± 3.55 | 81.00 ± 3.18 | 75.50 ± 3.50 |
| G-II STZ Diabetic Control | 16.50 ± 1.70 | 90.83 ± 2.42 | 164.80 ± 3.28 | 161.50 ± 3.46 |
| G-III Std. Drug (GLB) | 29.50 ± 1.78 | 39.33 ± 3.15 | 99.83 ± 3.71 | 78.33 ± 3.53 |
| G-IV Pure- AN (50 mg/kg) | 26.83 ± 1.62 | 53.83 ± 3.95 | 122.30 ± 5.20 | 84.50 ± 4.95 |
| G-V Nano-phyto vesicle (25 mg/kg) | 30.83 ± 2.92 | 38.33 ± 3.40 | 92.17 ± 4.54 | 74.67 ± 4.55 |
| G-VI SPC (50 mg/kg) | 17.83 ± 1.57 | 76.00 ± 4.52 | 153.70 ± 5.38 | 147.70 ± 3.25 |
P < 0.05 ⁎⁎P < 0.01 vs vehicle group I.
P < 0.05 ##P < 0.01 vs STZ diabetic control group II.
P < 0.05 ¤¤P < 0.01 compared in between group VI and group IV. Data analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett's Multiple test for comparison.
Effect of nano-phyto vesicular formulation (F9) over Serum biochemical parameters in STZ-induced diabetic rats (mean± SEM, n = 6).
| Animal groups | BUN/(mg•dL−1) | Insulin/(ng•mL−1) | Creatinine/(mg•dL−1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| G-I Vehicle Control | 30.44 ± 0.54 | 0.53 ± 0.022 | 0.48 ± 0.014 |
| G-II STZ Diabetic Control | 204.50 ± 1.36 | 0.26 ± 0.016 | 4.22 ± 0.148 |
| G-III Std. Drug (GLB) | 121.70 ± 1.17 | 0.46 ± 0.026 | 2.38 ± 0.151 |
| G-IV Pure- AN (50 mg/kg) | 151.20 ± 2.61 | 0.34 ± 0.018 | 3.52 ± 0.178 |
| G-V Nano-phyto vesicle (25 mg/kg) | 123.60 ± 2.66 | 0.43 ± 0.020 | 2.95 ± 0.076 |
| G-VI SPC (50 mg/kg) | 184.00 ± 3.30 | 0.28 ± 0.026 | 4.11 ± 0.157 |
P < 0.05 ⁎⁎P < 0.01 vs vehicle group I.
P < 0.05 ##P < 0.01 vs STZ diabetic control group II.
P < 0.05 ¤¤P < 0.01 compared in between group VI and group IV. Data analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett's Multiple test for comparison.
Fig. 6Histological examinations of 21 d experimental rat pancreas. Note: A: Pancreatic sections of normal rat showing cells with well-preserved cytoplasm and nucleus; B: STZ induced toxic rats pancreatic sections, the cells were irregular, not well defined and defect in cell membrane. Necrosis of the cells was very clear; C: Standard drug GLB treated group; D: Free pure AN treated group; E: Nano-phyto vesicular formulation treated rats restored the altered histopathological changes; F: SPC treated group.
Fig. 7Liver histopathological examinations of 21 d experimental rats. Note: A: vehicles control, the rats showing normal histological sections, well arranged cells and clear central veins. B: STZ-induced diabetic controlled rat group; C: Standard drug GLB treated group (all figures were in 10 × magnification); D: Free pure AN treated group; E: nano-phyto vesicular formulation treated rats restored near to normal rats liver histology; F: SPC treated rat group.