Evaluation of the antidiarrheal activity of the leaf extracts of Myrtus communis Linn (Myrtaceae) in mice model

Sisay, Mekonnen; Engidawork, Ephrem; Shibeshi, Workineh

doi:10.1186/s12906-017-1625-3

BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies

Table 1 Antidiarrheal effects of 80ME and solvent fractions of the leaves of Myrtus communis Linn on castor oil induced diarrheal model in mice

From: Evaluation of the antidiarrheal activity of the leaf extracts of Myrtus communis Linn (Myrtaceae) in mice model

Dose (mg/kg)	Onset of diarrhea (Min)	No of wet feces	Total No of feces	Average weight of wet feces (gm)	Average weight of total feces (gm)	% inhibition of defecation	% WWFO	% WTFO
Control	76.67 ± 7.99	6.67 ± 0.49	7.00 ± 0.52	0.36 ± 0.02	0.37 ± 0.02	-------	-----	----
80ME 100	109.67 ± 12.15	3.83 ± 0.70^a2b1f1	4.50 ± 0.72^b1f1	0.20 ± 0.02^a2b2f2	0.21 ± 0.02^a1b1f1	42.58	55.56	56.76
80ME 200	145.00 ± 21.77^a1	2.50 ± 0.50^a3	3.00 ± 0.68^a2	0.14 ± 0.03^a3	0.15 ± 0.03^a2	62.52	38.89	40.54
80ME 400	173.83 ± 18.03^a2	1.67 ± 0.49^a3	2.67 ± 0.72^a2	0.08 ± 0.02^a3	0.10 ± 0.03^a3	74.96	22.22	27.03
Loperamide 3	161.50 ± 16.93^a2	1.83 ± 0.40^a3	2.83 ± 0.60^a2	0.09 ± 0.02^a3	0.11 ± 0.02^a3	72.56	25.00	29.73
Control	80.17 ± 4.34	6.50 ± 0.43	6.83 ± 0.54	0.35 ± 0.03	0.36 ± 0.04	-----	-----	----
CF 200	123.33 ± 23.81	4.00 ± 1.00	4.33 ± 1.08	0.20 ± 0.05	0.21 ± 0.06	38.46	57.14	58.33
CF 300	140.50 ± 19.99	3.17 ± 0.65^a1	3.67 ± 0.76	0.16 ± 0.03^a1	0.17 ± 0.04^a1	51.23	45.71	47.22
CF 400	152.00 ± 21.01^a1	2.67 ± 0.76^a1	3.17 ± 0.83^a1	0.13 ± 0.04^a1	0.15 ± 0.04^a1	58.92	37.14	41.67
Loperamide 3	165.83 ± 33.17^a1	1.67 ± 0.76^a2	2.33 ± 1.05^a1	0.08 ± 0.04^a2	0.09 ± 0.04^a2	74.31	22.86	25.00
Control	69.33 ± 8.98	7.50 ± 1.34	8.17 ± 1.28	0.42 ± 0.05	0.45 ± 0.05	------	-----	---
MF 200	104.33 ± 6.14	5.17 ± 0.40^b1	5.67 ± 0.49^b1	0.29 ± 0.03^b1	0.30 ± 0.04^b1	31.07	69.05	66.67
MF 300	136.00 ± 29.02	3.83 ± 0.87^a1	4.33 ± 1.05	0.22 ± 0.06^a1	0.24 ± 0.06^a1	48.93	52.38	53.33
MF 400	155.50 ± 26.89^a1	2.83 ± 0.95^a1	3.50 ± 1.23^a1	0.14 ± 0.06^a2	0.17 ± 0.06^a2	62.67	33.33	37.78
Loperamide 3	166.83 ± 25.23^a1	1.83 ± 0.70^a2	2.33 ± 0.92^a2	0.09 ± 0.03^a3	0.11 ± 0.04^a3	75.56	21.43	24.44
Control	69.33 ± 8.98	7.50 ± 1.34	8.17 ± 1.28	0.42 ± 0.05	0.45 ± 0.05	------	----	---
AF 200	70.83 ± 6.53^b2j1n1	6.83 ± 0.70^b2i1j1m1n1	7.67 ± 0.67^b2g1i1j1n1	0.39 ± 0.02^b3g2i2j2n2	0.42 ± 0.02^b3g2i1j2n2	8.93	92.86	93.33
AF 300	77.67 ± 4.86^b1j1n1	6.33 ± 0.72^b2j1n1	6.67 ± 0.76^b1j1n1	0.35 ± 0.03^b2g1i1j1n1	0.36 ± 0.04^b2i1j1n1	15.60	83.33	80.00
AF 400	81.00 ± 3.53^b1	5.67 ± 0.62^b1j1n1	6.50 ± 0.62^b1j1	0.32 ± 0.02^b2j1n1	0.33 ± 0.02^b1j1n1	24.40	76.19	73.33
AF 800	134.67 ± 32.67	3.50 ± 0.99^a1	4.33 ± 1.22^a1	0.18 ± 0.05^a2	0.21 ± 0.05^a2	53.33	42.86	46.67
Loperamide 3	166.83 ± 25.23^a1	1.83 ± 0.70^a2	2.33 ± 0.92^a2	0.09 ± 0.03^a3	0.11 ± 0.04^a3	75.56	21.43	24.44

Values are mean ± SEM (n = 6); analysis was performed using one way ANOVA followed by Tuckey post hoc test; ^a compared with control values; ^b compared with loperamide; ^c compared with 100 mg/kg; ^d compared with 200 mg/kg; ^ecompared with 300 mg/kg; ^f compared with 400 mg/kg; ^g compared with 800 mg/kg; ^h compared with CF200; ⁱ compared with CF300; ^j compared with CF400; ^kcompared with MF200; ^m compared with MF 300; ⁿcompared with MF 400; ¹ p < 0.05, ² p < 0.01, ³ p < 0.001; 80ME =80% methanol extract, CF = chloroform fraction, MF = methanol fraction, AF = aqueous fraction. Controls received 10 ml/kg- distilled water (for 80ME, MF and AF) and 2% Tween-80 (for CF). WWFO = Weight of wet fecal output, WTFO = weight of total fecal output

Back to article page

ISSN: 2662-7671

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmccomplementarymedicineandtherapies@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com