Evaluation of Cissampelos pareira. Against Gastric Cancer and Enzymes Associated with Carcinogen Metabolism

Figures & data

Figure 1 Chemopreventive effect of Cissampelos pareira. extract (CPE) on benzo(a.)pyrene [B(a.)P]-induced gastric cancer in mice. (Values are mean ± SEM, n = 6 mice. *p < 0.02 compared with respective B(a.)P group.)

Table 1.. Influence of Cissampelos pareira. extract (CPE) and BHA on the detoxifying and antioxidant enzymes profile in mouse forestomach.

Treatment	Relative weight of forestomach (%)	GST	DTD	SOD	Protein
Group 1	0.346 ± 0.034	0.198 ± 0.016	0.024 ± 0.0008	5.10 ± 0.434	2.78 ± 0.380
Group 2	0.331 ± 0.025	0.309 ± 0.024**	0.026 ± 0.0013***	7.20 ± 0.794*	3.02 ± 0.256
Group 3	0.392 ± 0.018	0.267 ± 0.019*	0.028 ± 0.0017*	6.30 ± 0.815	3.04 ± 0.300
Group 4	0.346 ± 0.021	0.294 ± 0.025**	0.027 ± 0.0013*	9.15 ± 0.990**	2.74 ± 0.298

Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of six animals.

Group 1, control (only vehicle); group 2, CPE (50 mg/kg) + B(a.)P; group 3, CPE (100 mg/kg) + B(a.)P; group 4, BHA (0.75% in diet) + B(a.)P.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001 compared with the respective control group.

Table 2.. Effect of Cissampelos pareira. extract (CPE) and BHA on body weight gain and toxicity-related parameters in mouse.

	Body weight				Protein
Treatment	Initial	Final	Liver weight × 100/final body weight	LDH	Microsomes	Cytosol
Group 1	27.5 ± 1.35	27.8 ± 0.85	4.46 ± 0.36	1.83 ± 0.110	6.02 ± 0.541	8.65 ± 0.61
Group 2	27.9 ± 1.03	29.3 ± 1.34	4.49 ± 0.23	1.75 ± 0.149	8.22 ± 0.503**	8.30 ± 0.52
Group 3	28.5 ± 0.63	29.5 ± 1.37	4.83 ± 0.01	1.41 ± 0.170**	9.75 ± 0.601***	9.33 ± 0.75
Group 4	27.3 ± 0.84	28.9 ± 0.95	4.75 ± 0.45	1.12 ± 0.090***	6.32 ± 0.854	10.43 ± 0.51*

Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of six animals.

Group 1, control (only vehicle); group 2, CPE (50 mg/kg) + B(a.)P; group 3, CPE (100 mg/kg) + B(a.)P; group 4, BHA (0.75% in diet) + B(a.)P.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001 compared with respective control group.

Table 3.. Influence of Cissampelos pareira. extract (CPE) and BHA on mouse hepatic phases I and II drug metabolizing enzyme levels.

Treatment	Cyt P450	Cyt b5	Cyt P450 R	Cyt b5 R	GST	DTD
Group 1	0.388 ± 0.013	0.218 ± 0.007	0.146 ± 0.009	3.67 ± 0.169	1.80 ± 0.235	0.040 ± 0.0020
Group 2	0.576 ± 0.037***	0.229 ± 0.013	0.163 ± 0.017	4.16 ± 0.290	2.79 ± 0.251*	0.052 ± 0.0039*
Group 3	0.654 ± 0.052***	0.250 ± 0.012*	0.170 ± 0.005*	4.09 ± 0.332	3.11 ± 0.299**	0.059 ± 0.0051**
Group 4	0.412 ± 0.031	0.281 ± 0.017**	0.161 ± 0.015	3.46 ± 0.275	5.61 ± 0.514***	0.068 ± 0.0042***

Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of six animals.

Group 1, control (only vehicle); group 2, CPE (50 mg/kg) + B(a.)P; group 3, CPE (100 mg/kg) + B(a.)P; group 4, BHA (0.75% in diet) + B(a.)P.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001 compared with respective control group.

Table 4.. Influence of Cissampelos pareira. extract (CPE) and BHA on mouse hepatic antioxidant-related parameters and lipid peroxidation.

Treatment	Sulfhydryl content	GPx	GR	SOD	CAT	LPO
Group 1	25.6 ± 2.53	53.9 ± 4.43	36.7 ± 4.18	6.28 ± 0.659	50.5 ± 3.80	0.28 ± 0.010
Group 2	33.9 ± 2.15*	59.8 ± 3.79	58.9 ± 2.15***	7.87 ± 0.537	70.5 ± 4.21**	0.21 ± 0.009***
Group 3	48.9 ± 4.04***	57.6 ± 3.53	49.2 ± 2.41*	6.53 ± 0.674	81.9 ± 3.74***	0.17 ± 0.020***
Group 4	53.6 ± 5.31***	57.1 ± 3.69	53.4 ± 4.95*	5.97 ± 0.579	47.8 ± 4.33	0.19 ± 0.018**

Values are expressed as mean ± SEM of six animals.

Group 1, control (only vehicle); group 2, CPE (50 mg/kg) + B(a.)P; group 3, CPE (100 mg/kg) + B(a.)P; group 4, BHA (0.75% in diet) + B(a.)P.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001 compared with respective control group.