Streblus asper attenuates alloxan-induced diabetes in rats and demonstrates antioxidant and cytotoxic effects

Figures & data

Table 1. Effect of different extracts of Streblus asper on blood glucose level in alloxan-induced diabetic rats.

Test models	Groups	Fasting blood glucose levels (mmol/L) Mean ± SEM
		Day 0	Day 7	Day 14	Day 21
Normal	Group1. Normal control	5.66 ± 0.32	5.8 ± 0.31	5.7 ± 0.29	5.84 ± 0.13
Diabetic	Group 2. Glibenclamide	14.36 ± 0.93	6.2 ± 0.18	5.8 ± 0.12	5.3 ± 0.26
	Group 3. Diabetic control	13.14 ± 1.13	18.08 ± 1.26	23.28 ± 1.17	27.64 ± 0.45
	Group 4. MEL	19.06 ± 0.96	15.84 ± 1.25	14.08 ± 0.98	12.04 ± 0.64
	Group 5. MEB	19.82 ± 2.21	9.24 ± 1.59	6.7 ± 0.73	5.88 ± 0.52
	Group 6. AEL	14.38 ± 2.22	10.34 ± 1.99	8.24 ± 1.21	6.8 ± 0.57

MEL: methanol extract of leaf; MEB: methanol extract of bark; AEL: aqueous extract of leaf.

Figure 1. Percentage of reduction of blood glucose levels by different extracts of Streblus asper at different day interval. MEL: methanol extract of leaf; MEB: methanol extract of bark; AEL: aqueous extract of leaf.

Table 2. Significance of antidiabetic effect of different extracts of Streblus asper.

Test samples	F test value	p-Value	Level of significance
Glibenclamide (STD)	21.07	˂0.05	Statistically significance
MEL	4.09	˂0.05	Statistically significance
MEB	8.19	˂0.05	Statistically significance
AEL	20.84	˂0.05	Statistically significance

MEL: methanol extract of leaf; MEB: methanol extract of bark; AEL: aqueous extract of leaf.

Figure 2. IC₅₀ values of standard and different extracts of Streblus asper. BHT: tert-butyl-1-hydroxytoluene; MEL: methanol extract of leaf; MEB: methanol extract of bark; AEL: aqueous extract of leaf.

Table 3. IC₅₀ for DPPH radical scavenging properties of different extracts of Streblus asper.

Abs. of blank	Conc. (µg/mL)	Absorbance of the extracts				% of inhibition				IC50 (µg/mL)
		BHT	MEL	MEB	AEL	BHT	MEL	MEB	AEL	BHT	MEL	MEB	AEL
0.325	500	0.02	0.10	0.10	0.14	95.07	67.69	68.92	64
	250	0.02	0.13	0.11	0.15	94.15	60.92	65.53	58.15
	125	0.03	0.15	0.14	0.15	89.54	55.08	57.84	55.38
	62.5	0.07	0.19	0.15	0.17	80	42.74	54.46	46.77
	31.25	0.11	0.19	0.19	0.19	65.53	39.08	41.84	44.61
	15.63	0.18	0.23	0.22	0.21	44.31	29.23	32.00	35.38
	7.81	0.22	0.24	0.24	0.22	31.70	27.38	26.80	31.08
	3.91	0.27	0.24	0.24	0.22	16.92	25.23	25.85	28.62	16.17	88.54	58.92	111.36
	1.95	0.27	0.26	0.25	0.24	16.62	21.23	22.15	26.46
	0.98	0.28	0.26	0.25	0.25	15.08	12.31	15.68	21.23

BHT: tert-butyl-1-hydroxytoluene; MEL: methanol extract of leaf; MEB: methanol extract of bark; AEL: aqueous extract of leaf.

Figure 3. Plot of % inhibition and predicted regression line of different extracts of Streblus asper. BHT: tert-butyl-1-hydroxytoluene; MEL: methanol extract of leaf; MEB: methanol extract of bark; AEL: aqueous extract of leaf.

Table 4. LC₅₀ for Brine Shrimp lethality of different extracts of Streblus asper.

Test samples	Regression line	R^2	LC50 (µg/mL)
VS	y = 25.77x + 39.854	0.9622	2.48
MEL	y = 21.898x + 0.8741	0.755	173.80
MEB	y = 31.624x + 2.7134	0.7982	32.36
AEL	y = 14.207x + 0.301	0.736	3235.9

VS: vincristine sulphate; MEL: methanol extract of leaf; MEB: methanol extract of bark; AEL: aqueous extract of leaf.

Table 5. Effect of different extracts of Streblus asper on shrimp nauplii in brine shrimp lethality test.

Conc. (µg/mL)	Log10 conc.	No. of nauplii taken	% of mortality				LC50 value (µg/mL)
			VS	MEL	MEB	AEL	VS	MEL	MEB	AEL
00	–	–	–				4.28	173.80	32.36	3235.93
0.78125	−1.1072	10	20	0	0	0
1.5625	0.18382	10	30	0	0	0
3.125	0.49485	10	30	0	0	0
6.25	0.79588	10	40	10	10	0
12.5	1.09691	10	50	10	20	10
25	1.39794	10	70	20	40	10
50	1.69897	10	80	40	50	20
100	2.0	10	80	40	80	30
200	2.30103	10	100	60	90	40
400	2.60206	10	2.47	80	100	50

VS: vincristine sulphate; MEL: methanol extract of leaf; MEB: methanol extract of bark; AEL: aqueous extract of leaf.

Figure 4. Plot of % mortality and predicted regression line of different extracts of Streblus asper. VS: vincristine sulphate; MEL: methanol extract of leaf; MEB: methanol extract of bark; AEL: aqueous extract of leaf.