The Effect of Chilgoza Pine Nut (Pinus gerardiana Wall.) on Blood Glucose and Oxidative Stress in Diabetic Rats

Figures & data

Table 1 Effect of Pinus gerardiana on Rats’ Body Weight, Liver Weight/Index and Total Protein in Different Studied Groups

Parameter/Group	C	C + PG %3	C + PG %6	D	D + PG %3	D + PG %6
Initial body weight (g)	229.6±7.8	235.1±9.4	233.1±12.1	228±7.1	229.6±8.1	232.8±9.5
Final body weight (g)	276.8±13.3	274.6±9.8	272.5±10.7	188.6±5.8^a*	212.3±13.8^b*	217.6±18.7 ^b*
Liver weight (g)	7.4±0.3	7.3±0.2	7.3±0.3	5.7±0.2^a*	6±0.2	6.5±0.2^b*
Liver index	2.7±0.2	2.6±0.1	2.7±0.1	3±0.2^a**	2.8±0.2	2.9±0.2
Total protein (g/dL)	6.6±0.2	6.5±0.1	6.7±0.1	5.2±0.1^a*	5.6±0.2^b**	6.1±0.2^b*

Notes: Results were expressed as mean ± SD. C, normal control group; PG, Pinus gerardiana; D, diabetic group. ^aSignificant proportion of the healthy control group. ^bSignificantly compared to diabetic control group. **p<0.01 and *p <0.001.

Figure 1 Effect of Pinus gerardiana on rats’ water and food consumption in different studied groups.

Notes: Results were expressed as mean ± SD. C, normal control group; PG, Pinus gerardiana; D, diabetic group. ^aSignificant proportion of the healthy control group. ^bSignificantly compared to diabetic control group. **p<0.01 and *p <0.001.

Figure 2 Effect of Pinus gerardiana on fasting blood glucose, insulin and HOMA-IR in different studied groups.

Notes: Results were expressed as mean ± SD. C, normal control group; PG, Pinus gerardiana; D, diabetic group. ^aSignificant proportion of the healthy control group. ^bSignificantly compared to diabetic control group. **p<0.01 and *p <0.001.

Abbreviation: FBS, fasting blood sugar.

Table 2 Effect of Pinus gerardiana on Antioxidant Barrier Parameters (TAC, SOD)

Parameter/Group	C	C + PG %3	C + PG %6	D	D + PG %3	D + PG %6
Hepatic TAC (μmol/mg protein)	261.8±11	266.7±15.4	267.5±14	132.2±12.4^a*	169.5±16.4 ^b*	212.8±7.2 ^b*
Serum TAC (μmol/mL)	0.6±0.03	0.65±0.06	0.7±0.06	0.5±0.04 ^a*	0.5±0.04	0.6±0.05 ^b***
Hepatic SOD (U/mg protein)	335.5±21.1	332.5±32.5	334±37.1	261.3±21.5 ^a*	274.5±31.8	315.2±24.2^b***
Serum SOD (U/mL)	98±6.8	96.5±7.3	95±8.7	70.1±7.3 ^a*	79.5±6.7	84±6.8^b***

Notes: Results were expressed as mean ± SD. C, normal control group; PG, Pinus gerardiana; D, diabetic group. ^aSignificant proportion of the healthy control group. ^bSignificantly compared to diabetic control group. ***p<0.05 and *p <0.001.

Abbreviations: TAC, total antioxidant capacity; SOD, superoxide dismutase.

Table 3 Coefficient (r) and Significance of the Correlation Between the Tissue and Serum Antioxidant Barrier Parameters

Pearson Correlation	Hepatic TAC	Serum TAC	Hepatic SOD	Serum SOD
Hepatic TAC	1	0.893*	0.688*	0.840*
Serum TAC	0.893*	1	0.547**	0.640*
Hepatic SOD	0.688*	0.547**	1	0.893*
Serum SOD	0.840*	0.640*	0.893*	1

Notes: Displayed are the correlation coefficients (r) between different parameters within serum and liver. **p<0.01 and *p <0.001.

Abbreviations: TAC, total antioxidant capacity; SOD, superoxide dismutase.

Table 4 Coefficient (r) and Significance of the Correlation Between the Tissue and Serum Oxidative Damage Parameters

Pearson Correlation	Hepatic MDA	Serum MDA	Hepatic TT	Serum TT
Hepatic MDA	1	0.956*	−.875*	−.910*
Serum MDA	0.956*	1	−.842*	−.895*
Hepatic TT	−.875*	−.842*	1	0.935*
Serum TT	−.910*	−.895*	0.935*	1

Notes: Displayed are the correlation coefficients (r) between different parameters within serum and liver. *p <0.001.

Abbreviations: MDA, malondialdehyde; TT, total thiol molecules.

Figure 3 Effect of Pinus gerardiana on oxidative damage parameters (MDA, TT).

Notes: Results were expressed as mean ± SD. C, normal control group; PG, Pinus gerardiana; D, diabetic group. ^aSignificant proportion of the healthy control group. ^bSignificantly compared to diabetic control group. ***p<0.05, **p<0.01 and *p <0.001.

Abbreviations: MDA, malondialdehyde; TT, total thiol molecules.