Figures & data
Figure 1. The GC-MS fingerprint of the petroleum ether fraction.
Table 1. The chemical compounds in the PEF (GC-MS analysis).
Figure 2. Effects of the PEF and indomethacin on acetic acid-induced writhing in mice. Each column represents the mean ± SEM (n = 10). Asterisks indicate significant difference from control. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 (ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s test).
Figure 3. (A) Effects of the PEF and morphine (Morph) on formalin-induced nociception in mice. (B) Effects of naloxone on the PEF and morphine antinociception in the formalin test. The total time spent in licking the injected hind-paw was measured in the early phase (0-5 min, white column) and the late phase (20-25 min, black column). Each bar represented the mean ± SEM (n = 10). Asterisks indicate significant difference from control. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001 versus control, #P < 0.05 versus the naloxone; aP < 0.001 versus Morph; bP < 0.01 versus the fraction; cP < 0.05 versus the fraction (ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s test).
Figure 4. Effects of the PEF and morphine on thermal-induced antinociception in the hot-plate test. The time in seconds (s) of first sign of hind-paw licking or jump response to avoid heat nociception was recorded. Cut-off time was 60 s. Each column represented the mean ± SEM (n = 10). Asterisks indicate significant difference from control. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 (ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s test).
Table 2. Effects of PEF from Vitex negundo seeds on ear edema induced by xylene in mice.