Skip to main content

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 ± 0.70a2b1f1 4.50 ± 0.72b1f1 0.20 ± 0.02a2b2f2 0.21 ± 0.02a1b1f1 42.58 55.56 56.76
80ME 200 145.00 ± 21.77a1 2.50 ± 0.50a3 3.00 ± 0.68a2 0.14 ± 0.03a3 0.15 ± 0.03a2 62.52 38.89 40.54
80ME 400 173.83 ± 18.03a2 1.67 ± 0.49a3 2.67 ± 0.72a2 0.08 ± 0.02a3 0.10 ± 0.03a3 74.96 22.22 27.03
Loperamide 3 161.50 ± 16.93a2 1.83 ± 0.40a3 2.83 ± 0.60a2 0.09 ± 0.02a3 0.11 ± 0.02a3 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 ± 0.65a1 3.67 ± 0.76 0.16 ± 0.03a1 0.17 ± 0.04a1 51.23 45.71 47.22
CF 400 152.00 ± 21.01a1 2.67 ± 0.76a1 3.17 ± 0.83a1 0.13 ± 0.04a1 0.15 ± 0.04a1 58.92 37.14 41.67
Loperamide 3 165.83 ± 33.17a1 1.67 ± 0.76a2 2.33 ± 1.05a1 0.08 ± 0.04a2 0.09 ± 0.04a2 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 ± 0.40b1 5.67 ± 0.49b1 0.29 ± 0.03b1 0.30 ± 0.04b1 31.07 69.05 66.67
MF 300 136.00 ± 29.02 3.83 ± 0.87a1 4.33 ± 1.05 0.22 ± 0.06a1 0.24 ± 0.06a1 48.93 52.38 53.33
MF 400 155.50 ± 26.89a1 2.83 ± 0.95a1 3.50 ± 1.23a1 0.14 ± 0.06a2 0.17 ± 0.06a2 62.67 33.33 37.78
Loperamide 3 166.83 ± 25.23a1 1.83 ± 0.70a2 2.33 ± 0.92a2 0.09 ± 0.03a3 0.11 ± 0.04a3 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 ± 6.53b2j1n1 6.83 ± 0.70b2i1j1m1n1 7.67 ± 0.67b2g1i1j1n1 0.39 ± 0.02b3g2i2j2n2 0.42 ± 0.02b3g2i1j2n2 8.93 92.86 93.33
AF 300 77.67 ± 4.86b1j1n1 6.33 ± 0.72b2j1n1 6.67 ± 0.76b1j1n1 0.35 ± 0.03b2g1i1j1n1 0.36 ± 0.04b2i1j1n1 15.60 83.33 80.00
AF 400 81.00 ± 3.53b1 5.67 ± 0.62b1j1n1 6.50 ± 0.62b1j1 0.32 ± 0.02b2j1n1 0.33 ± 0.02b1j1n1 24.40 76.19 73.33
AF 800 134.67 ± 32.67 3.50 ± 0.99a1 4.33 ± 1.22a1 0.18 ± 0.05a2 0.21 ± 0.05a2 53.33 42.86 46.67
Loperamide 3 166.83 ± 25.23a1 1.83 ± 0.70a2 2.33 ± 0.92a2 0.09 ± 0.03a3 0.11 ± 0.04a3 75.56 21.43 24.44
  1. 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
\