Figures & data
Figure 1. Molecular structures of Indole Imine(s) A: Compound 389; N-(4-Methoxyphenyl) (4,6-dimethoxy-2,3-diphenyl-1H-indol-7-yl) methanimine, B: Compound 393; N-(4-Bromophenyl) (4,6-dimethoxy-2,3- diphenyl-1H-indol-7-yl) methanimine.
![Figure 1. Molecular structures of Indole Imine(s) A: Compound 389; N-(4-Methoxyphenyl) (4,6-dimethoxy-2,3-diphenyl-1H-indol-7-yl) methanimine, B: Compound 393; N-(4-Bromophenyl) (4,6-dimethoxy-2,3- diphenyl-1H-indol-7-yl) methanimine.](/cms/asset/41764efc-94d8-46ea-82e8-3f0f95a92c9e/tbeq_a_1868330_f0001_b.jpg)
Table 1. Effects of test compounds on acid output, gastric mucosal injury and mucus contents in ethanol-induced ulcer in rats.
Figure 2. Effect of test compounds on gastric juice parameters including pH and acid volume (mL) in ethanol-induced ulcer in rats.
Note: Values are expressed as Mean ± SEM (n = 5); asterisks indicate significant differences ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ns, non-significant vs. control group.
![Figure 2. Effect of test compounds on gastric juice parameters including pH and acid volume (mL) in ethanol-induced ulcer in rats.Note: Values are expressed as Mean ± SEM (n = 5); asterisks indicate significant differences ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ns, non-significant vs. control group.](/cms/asset/9373006a-f6ec-4f9a-b3af-d69eeec35e93/tbeq_a_1868330_f0002_b.jpg)
Figure 3. Effect of test compounds on ulcer severity in ethanol-induced ulcer in rats.
Note: Values are expressed as Mean ± SEM (n = 5); asterisks indicate significant differences ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ns, non-significant vs. control group.
![Figure 3. Effect of test compounds on ulcer severity in ethanol-induced ulcer in rats.Note: Values are expressed as Mean ± SEM (n = 5); asterisks indicate significant differences ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ns, non-significant vs. control group.](/cms/asset/7fbce517-2c31-4d4a-8d70-4bc4361f03b8/tbeq_a_1868330_f0003_b.jpg)
Figure 4. Histological examination of rat stomach (H & E stained) from different treatment groups: (A) Normal vehicle control group; (B) Ulcer control (ethanol 5 mL/kg) showing mucosal damage; (C) Standard drug (omeprazole treated; 20 mg/kg bw); (D) Compound 389 treated (20 mg/kg bw); (E) Compound 389 (40 mg/kg bw); (F) Compound 389 (60 mg/kg bw) showing normalization of morphological changes; (G) Compound 393 (20 mg/kg bw); (H) Compound 393 (40 mg/kg bw); (I) Compound 393 (60 mg/kg bw) showing normalization of morphological changes. Red arrow (disrupted epithelium), black arrow (oedema and neutrophil infiltration), yellow arrow (intact epithelium).
![Figure 4. Histological examination of rat stomach (H & E stained) from different treatment groups: (A) Normal vehicle control group; (B) Ulcer control (ethanol 5 mL/kg) showing mucosal damage; (C) Standard drug (omeprazole treated; 20 mg/kg bw); (D) Compound 389 treated (20 mg/kg bw); (E) Compound 389 (40 mg/kg bw); (F) Compound 389 (60 mg/kg bw) showing normalization of morphological changes; (G) Compound 393 (20 mg/kg bw); (H) Compound 393 (40 mg/kg bw); (I) Compound 393 (60 mg/kg bw) showing normalization of morphological changes. Red arrow (disrupted epithelium), black arrow (oedema and neutrophil infiltration), yellow arrow (intact epithelium).](/cms/asset/34c3d8ad-6298-4037-9bf4-f805e69db4ae/tbeq_a_1868330_f0004_c.jpg)
Data availability
All data that support this study are available from the corresponding authors [AM and MR] upon reasonable request.