Antioxidant potential of Gaultheria fragrantissima against adjuvant induced arthritis in Wistar rats

Figures & data

Table 1.  Effect of CFA and GF on hind paw volume of rats.

Group	Day 15	Day 18	Day21	Day 24	Day 27	Day 28
Group I (control)	0.20 ± 0.01	0.20 ± 0.009	0.21 ± 0.01	0.21 ± 0.01	0.20 ± 0.01	0.20 ± 0.009
Group II (induced)	0.60 ± 0.03^a*	0.72 ± 0.04^a*	0.73 ± 0.05^a*	0.75 ± 0.05^a*	0.77 ± 0.04^a*	0.79 ± 0.04^a*
Group III (standard)	0.58 ± 0.03^b,NS	0.48 ± 0.48^b*	0.37 ± 0.02^b*	0.30 ± 0.01^b*	0.27 ± 0.03^b*	0.22 ± 0.01^b*
Group IV (test1)	0.60 ± 0.03^b,NS	0.53 ± 0.03^b*	0.49 ± 0.03^b*	0.41 ± 0.02^b*	0.36 ± 0.01^b*	0.33 ± 0.01^b*
Group V (test2)	0.57 ± 0.03^b,NS	0.50 ± 0.03^b*	0.42 ± 0.02^b*	0.38 ± 0.02^b*	0.34 ± 0.01^b*	0.30 ± 0.01^b*

Values are expressed as mean ± SD for six animals. Paw volume unit: mL. Comparisons are made between Group I (a) and Group II; Group II (b) with Group III, IV, and V. *Statistical significance at p < 0.05; NS, non significant at p < 0.05.

Table 2.  Effect of GF (extract) and α-tocopherol on DPPH radical.

	Concentration (50 μg ml^−1)	Concentration (100 μg ml^−1)	Concentration (200 μg ml^−1)
Sample	(% inhibition)	(% inhibition)	(% inhibition)
Extract	8.12 ± 0.45	12.41 ± 0.64	21.13 ± 1.46
α-tocopherol^a	92.57 ± 5.39	93.16 ± 6.06	93.84 ± 6.29

Values (% inhabitation) are expressed as mean ± SD of three parallel measurements. ^aStandard compound.

Table 3.  Effect of CFA and GF on different liver marker enzymes in serum of rats.

Group	AST	ALT	ALP	GGT
Group I (control)	70.09 ± 2.74	38.88 ± 1.67	106.37 ± 3.95	41.21 ± 2.33
Group II (induced)	99.37 ± 9.24^a*	67.40 ± 4.25^a*	121.12 ± 11.57^a*	67.92 ± 6.01^a*
Group III (standard)	79.72 ± 6.77^b*	43.07 ± 2.02^b*	109.00 ± 6.53^b*	41.23 ± 1.85^b*
Group IV (test1)	83.46 ± 4.43^b*	57.41 ± 3.47^b*	110.08 ± 5.08^b*	50.81 ± 2.68^b*
Group V (test2)	72.53 ± 5.49^b*	45.12 ± 2.91^b*	92.58 ± 5.37^b*	44.93 ± 2.11^b*

Values are expressed as mean ± SD for six animals. Liver marker enzymes unit: IU L⁻¹ (AST, ALT and ALP) and IU L⁻¹ (GGT), Comparisons are made between Group I (a) and Group II; Group II (b) with Group III, IV, and V. *Statistical significance at p < 0.05.

Table 4.  Effect of CFA and GF on different antioxidant enzymes in liver tissue of rats.

Group	SOD	CAT	GPx	GR	GST
Group I (control)	8.08 ± 0.52	67.81 ± 4.45	124.29 ± 6.31	1.96 ± 0.09	12.08 ± 0.66
Group II (induced)	3.87 ± 0.27^a*	39.92 ± 2.67^a*	87.94 ± 6.27^a*	0.89 ± 0.07^a*	5.32 ± 0.49^a*
Group III (standard)	7.01 ± 0.43^b*	39.92 ± 2.67^b*	119.85 ± 6.19^b*	1.35 ± 0.07^b*	9.46 ± 0.64^b*
Group IV (test1)	5.11 ± 0.29^b*	51.54 ± 2.90^b*	109.95 ± 5.32^b*	0.80 ± 0.05^NS	6.94 ± 0.44^b*
Group V (test2)	7.11 ± 0.35^b*	57.50 ± 3.36^b*	121.02 ± 6.88^b*	1.19 ± 0.07^b*	8.12 ± 0.44^b*

Values are expressed as mean ± SD for six animals. Units: SOD (Unites min⁻¹mg⁻¹ protein); CAT (μmole H₂O₂ consumed min⁻¹mg⁻¹ protein); GPx (μmole of GSH oxidized min⁻¹mg⁻¹ protein); GR (nmole TNB formed mg⁻¹protein min⁻¹) and GST (nmole min⁻¹mg⁻¹ protein). Comparisons are made between Group I (a) and Group II; Group II (b) with Group III, IV and V. *Statistical significance at p < 0.05; NS, non significance at p < 0.05.

Figure 1.  Effect of CFA and GF on GSH levels in the liver of experimental animals. Values are expressed as mean ± SD for six animals. GSH levels are expressed as μmole g⁻¹ tissue. Comparisons are made between: Group I (a) and Group II; Group II (b) and III, IV, and V. *Statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Figure 2.  Effect of CFA and GF on MDA levels in the liver of experimental animals. Values are expressed as mean ± SD for six animals. MDA levels are expressed as μmole 100mg⁻¹protein. Comparisons are made between: Group I (a) and Group II; Group II (b) and III, IV, and V. *Statistically significant (p < 0.05).