Download Complete Issue - Academic Journals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2268 J. Med. Plants Res. 1993), but were allowed free access drinking water up to 2 h before the experiment. Gastric ulcer in Sprague Dawley was induced by orogastric intubation of absolute Ethanol (5 ml/kg) according to the method described by De Pasquale et al. (1995). Ulcer control group was orally administered with vehicle (CMC, 0.25% w/v, 5 ml/kg). The reference group was received oral doses of 20 mg/kg Omeprazole in CMC (5 ml/kg) as positive controls. Experimental groups (groups 3 and 4) were orally administered 250 and 500 mg/kg of plant extract dissolved in CMC solution (5 ml/kg), respectively. One hour after this pre-treatment; all groups of rats were gavaged with absolute ethanol (5 ml/kg) in order to induce gastric ulcers (Hollander et al., 1985). After one hour, the rats were sacrificed by cervical dislocation under overdose of diethyl ether anesthesia (Paiva et al., 1998). The stomachs were immediately excised and rapidly immersed in 10% buffered formalin solution. Measurement of acid of gastric juice and mucus production Each stomach was opened along the greater curvature. Samples of gastric contents were analyzed for hydrogen ion concentration by pH-meter titration with 0.1 N NaOH solutions using digital pH meter. The acid content was expressed as mEq/l based on the method of Tan et al. (2002). Gastric mucus production was measured in the rats that were subjected to absolute ethanol-induced gastric mucosal injury. The gastric mucosa of each rat was gently scraped using a glass slide and the mucus obtained was weighed using a precision electronic balance (Tan et al., 2002). Gross gastric lesions evaluation Any ulcers would be found in the gastric mucosa, appearing as elongated bands of hemorrhagic lesions parallel to the long axis of the stomach. Each gastric mucosa was thus examined for damage. The length (mm) and width (mm) of the ulcer on the gastric mucosa were measured by a planimeter (10 × 10 mm 2 = ulcer area) under dissecting microscope (1.8 x). The area of each ulcer lesion was measured by counting the number of small squares, 2 × 2 mm, covering the length and width of each ulcer band. The sum of the areas of all lesions for each stomach was applied in the calculation of the ulcer area (UA) where the sum of small squares × 4 × 1.8 = UA mm 2 as described by Kauffman and Grossman (1978) with slight modification. The inhibition percentage (I %) was calculated by the following formula as described by Njar et al. (1995): (I %) = [(UAcontrol − UAtreated) UAcontrol] × 100. Histological evaluation of gastric lesions Specimens of the gastric walls from each rat were fixed in 10% buffered formalin and processed in a paraffin tissue processing machine. After embedding, sections of the stomach were made at a thickness of 5 µm and stained with Hematoxylin and Eosin for histological evaluation. Ethics The study was approved by the ethics Committee for animal experimentation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Malaysia (Ethics No. PM 07/10/2009 MAA (a)(R). Throughout the experiments, all animals received human care according to the criteria outlined in the “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” prepared by the National Academy of Sciences and published by the National Institute of Health. Statistical analysis All values were expressed as mean ±S.E.M. The statistical significance of differences between groups was assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the difference between two groups. A value of p
Table 1. Renal function tests of rats in acute toxicity study of S. mahagoni leaf extract. Dose Sodium (mmol/L) Pottasium (mmol/L) Chloride (mmol/L) CO2 (mmol/L) Anion gap (mmol/L) Urea (mmol/L) Al-Radahe et al. 2269 Creatinine (µmol/L) Vehicle (CMC, 0.25% w/v) 137.17 ± 0.47 5.17±0.2 103.02 ± 0.17 23.11 ± 0.86 18.17 ±0.75 5.61 ± 0.44 50.33 ± 1.74 S. mahagoni extract (2 g/kg b.wt) 137.67±0.42 5.32±0.16 101.69±1.23 20.84 ±0.77 19.17 ± 1.56 4.86 ± 0.46 49.67 ± 0.84 S. mahagoni extract (5 g/kg b.wt) 138.01 ± 0.50 4.88 ± 0.17 102.83 ± 0.79 21.9 ±0.88 17.76 ±0.61 5.72±0.38 48.74±1.88 Values are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. There are no significant differences among all groups. Table 2. Liver function tests of rats in acute toxicity study of S. mahagoni leaf extract. Dose Total protein (g/L) Albumin (g/L) Globulin (g/L) TB (µmol/L) CB (µmol/L) AP (IU/L) ALT (IU/L) AST (IU/L) GGT (IU/L) Vehicle (CMC, 0.25% w/v) 71.2 + 1.7 11.33 + 0.71 59.86 + 1.70 1.81 + 0.17 0.86 + 0.17 134.5 + 17.9 53.05 + 3.17 152.9 + 8.3 4.87 + 0.92 Plant extract (2 g/kg b.wt) 71.2 + 0.5 10.87 + 0.33 59.62 + 0.34 2.07 + 0.17 1.00 + 0.00 133.7 + 8.9 50.83 + 1.37 152.7 + 3.6 5.01 + 1.21 Plant extract (5 g/kg b.wt)t) 71.8 + 1.0 11.63 + 0.6 60.00 + 0.93 1.77 + 0.22 1.00 + 0.00 135.1 + 6.9 52.65 + 3.27 154.0 + 11.3 5.13 + 1.09 Values are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. There are no significant differences among all groups. TB: Total bilirubin; CB: Conjugated bilirubin; AP: Alkaline phosphatase; ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; ST: Aspartate aminotransferase; GGT: G-Glutamyl Transferase. Table 3. Effect of leaf extract of S. mahagoni on the ulcer area pre-treated with different preparations. Animal group Pre-treatment (5 ml/kg dose) Mucus production pH of gastric content Ulcer area (mm) 2 Inhibition (%) 1 Ulcer control (CMC) 0.34 + 0.009 a 4.0 + 0.09 a 920.00 ± 10.72 a - 2 Omeprazole (20 mg/kg b.wt) (positive control) 0.57 + 0.006 b 6.85 + 0.15 b 205.00 + 7.64 b 77.72 3 S. mahagoni leaf extract (250 mg/kg b.wt) 0.89 + 0.08 c 7.0 + 0.13 b,c 185.33 ± 6.77 b 79.86 4 S. mahagoni leaf extract (500 mg/kg b.wt) 1.05 + 0.02 d 7.25 + 0.07 c 45.50 + 5.16 c 95.05 All values are expressed as mean ± S.E.M of six rats per group. Mean values with different superscripts are significantly different. The mean difference is significant at P value of
Page 1 and 2: Journal of Medicinal Plants Researc
Page 3 and 4: Editors Prof. Akah Peter Achunike E
Page 5 and 6: Electronic submission of manuscript
Page 7 and 8: Fees and Charges: Authors are requi
Page 9 and 10: Table of Contents: Volume 6 Number
Page 15 and 16: Figure 1. Chuanxiong Rhizoma (http:
Page 17 and 18: Table 1. Identification of main pea
Page 19 and 20: Table 3. Pharmacokinetic parameters
Page 21 and 22: active component study, many invest
Page 25 and 26: and 1185 kg ha -1 in the first site
Page 27 and 28: Table 1. Recommendation for use fer
Page 29 and 30: Sadanandan AK, Hamza S (1996c). Stu
Page 31 and 32: and it has been traced to South Ame
Page 33 and 34: Table 3. Results of phytochemical a
Page 37 and 38: (a) (b) (c) Figure 1. (a) Normal ce
Page 39 and 40: emedies in the south of Brazil. J.
Page 41: known fatty acids and terpenoids we
Page 45 and 46: Al-Radahe et al. 2271 Figure 3.nnnn
Page 47 and 48: namely disruption of the vascular e
Page 49 and 50: Zayachkivska OS, Konturek SJ, Drozd
Page 51 and 52: β-carotene were purchased from Sig
Page 53 and 54: Figure 1. Effect of ethanol concent
Page 55 and 56: Table 3. Climatic and soil factors
Page 57 and 58: content of polysaccharides. Phospha
Page 59 and 60: Serge et al. 2285 Table 1. Relative
Page 61 and 62: Percentage inhibition % of inhibiti
Page 65 and 66: Table 1. Result of phytochemical sc
Page 67 and 68: Table 3. Result of thin layer chrom
Page 71 and 72: Table 2. MIC of a compound 1 from c
Page 75 and 76: Zirihi et al. 2301 Figure 2. Termin
Page 77 and 78: Figure 5. T. catappa Linn. (Combret
Page 79 and 80: Figure 8. A. fumigatus: Aspect of c
Page 81 and 82: Figure 12. Sensitivity of A. fumiga
Page 85 and 86: Noormi et al. 2311 Table 1. Callus
Page 87 and 88: Table 2. Contd. NoC=No callus. 4.0
Page 89 and 90: Figure 2. Contd. at 2.0 mg/L yellow
Page 93 and 94:
Table 1. Biochemical parameters in
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 3. Bcl-xL reactions in inter
Page 97 and 98:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would l
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 1. The first page of the boo
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 3. The most widely included
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 4. Lithographic print “St.
Page 105 and 106:
Table 1. List of plants included in
Page 107 and 108:
Table 1. Contd. Nedelcheva 2333 Cin
Page 109 and 110:
Table 1. Contd. Nedelcheva 2335 Rhe
Page 111 and 112:
14 7 1 15 1 35 17 16 Imported plant
Page 113 and 114:
Academy of Science Publishing House
Page 115 and 116:
et al., 1996; van Wyk and Gericke,
Page 117 and 118:
DPPH inhibition (%) DPPH % inhibiti
Page 119 and 120:
% Mortality Concentration (µg/ml)
Page 121 and 122:
information on plants used for the
Page 123 and 124:
Table 1. Levels of independent vari
Page 125 and 126:
Arbutin (mg/g) Co-solvent Figure 1.
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Arbutin (mg/g) Extraction pressure
Page 131 and 132:
Table 3. Arbuitn content of Asian p
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Arbutin (mg/g) Extraction pressure
Page 137 and 138:
Arbutin (mg/g) Extraction temperatu
Page 139 and 140:
Journal of Medicinal Plants Researc
Page 141 and 142:
Table 1. Chemical composition of es
Page 143 and 144:
Darjazi 2369 Table 2. Statistical a
Page 145 and 146:
Table 3. Correlation matrix (number
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Table 1. Precision test. extraction
Page 151 and 152:
Figure 2. Effect of different alcoh
Page 153 and 154:
Table 6. Results of ANOVA. Nie et a
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Table 2. Plant data and MIC values
Page 159 and 160:
exhibiting the polar extracts of P.
Page 161 and 162:
Table 3. Contd. AcOEt ++ ++ ++ - Me
Page 163 and 164:
Figure 1. Map of Ladakh region of I
Page 165 and 166:
Warghat et al. 2391 Table 3. Summar
Page 167 and 168:
Table 5. Inter-Population genetic i
Page 169 and 170:
Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM
Page 171 and 172:
ice residue is an ideal raw materia
Page 173 and 174:
DPPH• scavenging ratio(%) OD valu
Page 175 and 176:
scavenging effect on free radical a
Page 177 and 178:
our new CL system. Fenton reaction
Page 179 and 180:
1 2 Time (s) Figure 2. Kinetic curv
Page 181 and 182:
Wong et al., 2006). It can be seen
Page 183 and 184:
Pan YM, Liang Y, Wang HS, Liang M (
Page 185 and 186:
2422 J. Med. Plants Res. close cano
Page 187 and 188:
2424 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. M
Page 189 and 190:
2426 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. C
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
2432 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 2. D
Page 197 and 198:
2434 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 6. T
Page 199 and 200:
2436 J. Med. Plants Res. budget dur
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
2440 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. R
Page 205 and 206:
2442 J. Med. Plants Res. Stability
Page 207 and 208:
2444 J. Med. Plants Res. production
Page 209 and 210:
2446 J. Med. Plants Res. Figure 2.
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
2450 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 2. A
Page 215 and 216:
2452 J. Med. Plants Res. Ghasemi Pi
Page 217 and 218:
2454 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. I
Page 219 and 220:
2456 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 3. M
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
2460 J. Med. Plants Res. Department
Page 225 and 226:
2462 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 3. E
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
2466 J. Med. Plants Res. AOAC (2000
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
2470 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. F
Page 235 and 236:
2472 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 3. S
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
2480 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. W
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
2486 J. Med. Plants Res. components
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
2490 J. Med. Plants Res. Inhibition
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
2494 J. Med. Plants Res. can increa
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
2500 J. Med. Plants Res. Flowering
Page 265 and 266:
2502 J. Med. Plants Res. harvest in
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
2512 J. Med. Plants Res. over-expre
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
2516 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. P
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
2524 J. Med. Plants Res. ACKNOWLEDG
Page 289 and 290:
UPCOMING CONFERENCES 15th European
Page 291:
show all

Download Complete Issue - Academic Journals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?