| Literature DB >> 36234860 |
Nida Iftikhar1, Ammara Saleem1, Muhammad Furqan Akhtar2, Ghulam Abbas3, Shahid Shah4, Shabana Bibi5,6, Ghulam Md Ashraf7,8, Badrah S Alghamdi7,9, Turki S Abujamel8,10.
Abstract
Present research was planned to assess the in vitro and in vivo anti-arthritic potential of Caralluma tuberculata N. E. Brown. methanolic (CTME) and aqueous (CTAQ) extracts. Chemical characterization was done by high-performance liquid chromatography and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. The Complete Freund's Adjuvant (CFA) was injected in left hind paw of rat at day 1 and dosing at 150, 300 and 600 mg/kg was started on the 8th day via oral gavage in all groups except normal and disease control rats (which were given distilled water), whereas methotrexate (intraperitoneal; 1 mg/kg/mL) was administered to standard control. The CTME and CTAQ exerted significant (p < 0.01-0.0001) in vitro anti-arthritic action. Both extracts notably reduced paw edema, and restored weight loss, immune organs weight, arthritic score, RBCs, ESR, platelet count, rheumatoid factor (RF), C-reactive protein, and WBCs in treated rats. The plant extracts showed significant (p < 0.05-0.0001) downregulation of tumor necrosis factor-α, Interleukin-6, -1β, NF-κB, and cyclooxygenase-2, while notably upregulated IL-4, IL-10, I-κBα in contrast to disease control rats. The plant extracts noticeably (p < 0.001-0.0001) restored the superoxide dismutase and catalase activities and MDA levels in treated rats. Both extracts exhibited significant anti-arthritic potential. The promising potential was exhibited by both extracts probably due to phenolic, and flavonoids compounds.Entities:
Keywords: CFA; Caralluma tuberculata; NF-Κβ; high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry; oxidative stress
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36234860 PMCID: PMC9572219 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27196323
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
HPLC analysis of Caralluma tuberculata extract.
| CTME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Catechin | 4 | 3.215 | 542,990.4 | 49,453.1 | 203.62 | |
| Gallic acid | 5 | 3.375 | 151,085.00 | 23,349.5 | 11.94 | |
| Caffeic acid | 7 | 7.694 | 1,330,149.4 | 165,364.3 | 43.23 | |
| Ferulic acid | 12 | 12.944 | 111,935.6 | 10,471.5 | 5.54 | |
| Quercetin | 17 | 24.735 | 583,585.5 | 46,390.1 | 55.44 |
Figure 1HPLC chromatogram of Caralluma tuberculata methanolic extract.
GC-MS analysis of C. tuberculata extract.
| Peak No. | Peak Time (min) | Chemical Compound | Peak Area | Peak Area (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 5.010 | Butanenitrile, 2,3-dioxo-, dioxime, O,O’-diacetyl- | 1,481,878 | 0.33 |
| 2. | 5.234 | l-Guanidinosuccinimide | 2,666,278 | 0.59 |
| 3. | 5.400 | 3,4-Dihydroxybenzyl alcohol,tris(trimethylsilyl)- | 1,711,708 | 0.38 |
| 4. | 6.122 | N-Isobutyl-sec-butylamine | 4,454,248 | 0.98 |
| 5. | 7.149 | 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural | 3,075,712 | 0.68 |
| 5. | 9.091 | 2-Methoxy-4-vinylphenol | 2,013,622 | 0.44 |
| 7. | 9.856 | Ethane, 1,2-diethoxy- | 2,617,942 | 0.57 |
| 8. | 14.129 | 4-Methyl-2,5-dimethoxybenzaldehyde | 12,671,034 | 2.78 |
| 9. | 17.504 | Tetradecanoic acid | 2,845,228 | 0.62 |
| 10. | 18.542 | 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 1-methylethyl ester | 1,936,230 | 0.43 |
| 11. | 18.900 | Dimethylphosphinacrylonitryl | 2,395,846 | 0.53 |
| 12. | 19.360 | Neophytadiene | 2,145,525 | 0.47 |
| 13. | 19.852 | D-Carvone | 2,247,263 | 0.49 |
| 14. | 20.125 | Hexadecanoic acid, methyl ester | 5,070,649 | 1.11 |
| 15. | 20.248 | 1-Propoxypropan-2-yl nonanoate | 20,180,612 | 4.43 |
| 16. | 20.377 | 3-Ethyl-4-methyl-3-heptanol | 1,495,429 | 0.33 |
| 17. | 20.837 | n-Hexadecanoic acid | 30,618,380 | 6.72 |
| 18. | 22.259 | Heptadecanoic acid | 2,723,170 | 0.60 |
| 19. | 22.693 | 10,13-Octadecadienoic acid, methyl ester | 4,406,647 | 0.97 |
| 20. | 22.784 | 9,12,15-Octadecatrienoic acid, methyl ester | 5,144,038 | 1.13 |
| 21. | 22.949 | Phytol | 15,955,953 | 3.50 |
| 22. | 23.404 | 9,12-Octadecadienoic acid (Z,Z)- | 17,972,849 | 3.95 |
| 23. | 23.490 | 9,17-Octadecadienal, (Z)- | 16,459,178 | 3.61 |
| 24. | 23.800 | Octadecanoic acid | 3,675,449 | 0.81 |
| 25. | 24.003 | 3-Buten-2-ol, 2,3-dimethyl- | 6,599,384 | 1.45 |
| 26. | 24.287 | Ethyl ether | 5,283,067 | 1.16 |
| 27. | 28.571 | Cyclohexadecane, 1,2-diethyl- | 1,575,111 | 0.35 |
| 28. | 28.913 | Glycerol 1-palmitate | 10,427,195 | 2.29 |
| 29. | 32.170 | 1,3,11-Dodecatriene | 6,174,131 | 1.36 |
| 30. | 32.802 | Myristoyl chloride | 1,730,016 | 0.38 |
| 31. | 32.903 | 3-Buten-2-ol, 2,3-dimethyl- | 3,430,046 | 0.75 |
| 32. | 33.625 | Silane, diethyldimethyl- | 11,604,735 | 2.55 |
| 33. | 33.957 | Pentanoic acid, 4-methyl-, methyl ester | 4,240,177 | 0.93 |
| 34. | 35.086 | Isopropyl myristate | 3,430,717 | 0.75 |
| 35. | 37.947 | (Z)-epi-.beta.-Santalol | 2,100,345 | 0.46 |
| 36. | 39.776 | γ -Tocopherol | 20,513,277 | 4.50 |
| 37. | 40.466 | 2-Amino-7-chloro-[1,3]thiazino [5,6-c]quinolin-4-one | 3,022,677 | 0.66 |
| 38. | 40.787 | Phenol, 2,6-di-t-butyl-4-methyl-3-nitro-, acetate(ester) | 1,899,459 | 0.42 |
| 39. | 42.146 | Vitamin E | 24,222,842 | 5.32 |
| 40. | 42.889 | Olean-12-en-3-ol, acetate, (3.beta.)- | 1,534,963 | 0.34 |
| 41. | 44.194 | Campesterol | 32,976,594 | 7.24 |
| 42. | 44.355 | Silane, dimethylnonyloxypropyloxy- | 5,280,442 | 1.16 |
| 43. | 44.836 | Stigmasterol | 23,213,212 | 5.10 |
| 44. | 46.484 | β-Sitosterol | 47,356,836 | 10.40 |
| 45. | 47.099 | β-Amyrin | 5,507,688 | 1.21 |
| 46. | 47.922 | Androst-5-en-17-ol, 4,4-dimethyl- | 11,314,420 | 2.48 |
| 47. | 48.356 | Lupeol | 18,854,916 | 4.14 |
| 48. | 49.618 | Lanosterol | 12,838,547 | 2.82 |
Activity against protein denaturation.
Figure 2GC-MS chromatogram of C. tuberculata extract.
Figure 3Caralluma tuberculata extracts on inhibition of protein denaturation and membrane stabilization. (a): Egg albumin denaturation assay; (b): BSA denaturation assay; (c): HRBC membrane stabilization assay.
Figure 4Effect of C. tuberculata on the paw diameter, body weight (g) and arthritic index in arthritic rat values as mean ± S.D (n = 6). Results were significant p < 0.05–0.0001 as equated to DCG.
Figure 5Influence of C. tuberculata extracts on hematological parameters. Data as mean ± S.D and considered significant as compared to a and b. Where a: NCG; b: DCG.
Figure 6Effect of C. tuberculata extracts on kidney and liver function parameters. Values as mean ± S.D; (n = 6), Results were significant as equated to a and b. Where a: NCG; b: DCG.
Figure 7Effect of Caralluma tuberculata on histopathology of arthritic rats at 10× magnification. The tissues were stained with H & E stains. Here (a): Normal control group; (b): Disease control group; (c): Standard control group; (d): CTME150; (e): CTME 300; (f): CTME 600; (g): CTAQ 150; (h): CTAQ 300 and (i): CTAQ 600. Where square showed hair follicle and triangle showed chronic inflammation.
Effect of C. tuberculata extracts on the arthritic index.
| Arthritic Index | Disease Control | Standard Control | CTME (mg/kg) | CTAQ (mg/kg) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150 | 300 | 600 | 150 | 300 | 600 | |||
| Pannus formation | 2.6 ± 0.54 | 0.8 ± 0.84 *** | 2.4 ± 0.55 ns | 2.2 ± 0.45 ns | 1.2 ± 0.84 ** | 1.8 ± 0.83 ns | 1.0 ± 0.71 ** | 0.6 ± 0.89 *** |
| Inflammation | 2.8 ± 0.44 | 1.2 ± 0.83 *** | 2.6 ± 0.54 ns | 1.8 ± 0.44 * | 1.6 ± 0.55 ** | 1.6 ± 0.55 ** | 1.4 ± 0.55 ** | 1.0 ± 0.71 **** |
| Bone erosion | 2.6 ± 0.55 | 0.4 ± 0.55 **** | 1.6 ± 1.14 ns | 1.2 ± 0.84 ** | 0.8 ± 0.45 *** | 1.2 ± 0.84 ** | 0.6 ± 0.54 *** | 0.4 ± 0.55 **** |
Results as mean ± S.D. *, **, ***, **** p < 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001 as equated to DCG; ns: Non-significant.
Figure 8Effect of Caralluma tuberculata on immune organs weight. Values were expressed as mean ± S.D (n = 6). Results were significant (p < 0.05) as equated to a and b. Where a: NCG; b: DCG.
Figure 9Effect of C. tuberculata on antioxidant level after CFA-induced arthritis. Values as mean ± S.D (n = 6). Results were significant (p < 0.001–0.0001) as equated to a and b. Where a: NCG; b: DCG.
Figure 10Effect of C. tuberculata extracts on gene expression in arthritic rats. Values as mean ± S.D (n = 6). Here ‘a’ and ‘b’ showed significantly different at p < 0.0001 in contrast to NCG and DCG respectively.