Antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory properties of Ruellia tuberosa

Figures & data

Table 1.  Effect of Ruellia tuberosa ethanol extract in mice observed in the hot plate test.

Treatment	Dose (mg/kg, p.o.)^*	Response time (sec)
		0 min (Latency)	15 min	30 min	45 min
Control (1% aq. Tween 80 )	10 mL/kg	1.443 ± 0.183	2.485 ± 0.164	2.942 ± 0.292	2.714 ± 0.212
Diclofenac Na	100 (i.p.)	1.885 ± 0.086^*	5.057 ± 0.198^*	5.757 ± 0.303^*	5.957 ± 0.182^*
Ruellia tuberosa extract	100	2.142 ± 0.245^*	4.285 ± 0.162^*	4.342 ± 0.128^*	4.328 ± 0.096^*
	200	2.114 ± 0.193^*	4.471 ± 0.188^*	4.614 ± 0.142^*	4.828 ± 0.357^*
	300	2.128 ± 0.186^*	4.642 ± 0.377^*	5.057 ± 0.127^*	5.114 ± 0.118^*

^*Beginning 30 min after oral administration of test agents (or 15 min after diclofenac Na), the nociceptive response was measured every 15 min over a 45-min period. Each datum represents the latency of nociceptive responses (sec) ± SEM (n = 7) *p <0.05 compared with the control group (Student’s t-test).

Table 2.  Effect of Ruellia tuberosa ethanol extracts in mice observed in the hot tail-flick test.

Treatment	Dose (mg/kg, p.o.)^*	Response time (sec)
		0 min	30 min	60 min
Control (1% aq. Tween 80 )	10 mL/kg	2.571 ± 0.398	2.114 ± 0.183	2.857 ± 0.281
Diclofenac Na	100 (i.p.)	2.728 ± 0.210 (MPA 0.021)	4.085 ± 0.825^** (MPA 1.76)	5.428 ± 0.340^** (MPA 2.285)
Ruellia tuberosa extract	100	2.585 ± 0.326 (MPA 0.002)	3.042 ± 0.263^** (MPA 0.717)	3.757 ± 0.241^** (MPA 0.614)
	200	2.542 ± 0.361 (MPA 0.006)	3.628 ± 0.337^** (MPA 1.302)	4.071 ± 0.395^** (MPA 0.928)
	300	2.628 ± 0.196 (MPA 0.008)	3.814 ± 0.429^** (MPA 1.488)	5.071 ± 0.595^** (MPA 1.928)

^*Beginning 30 min after oral administration of test agents (or 15 min after diclofenac Na), the nociceptive response was measured every 30 min over a 60-min period. Each datum represents the latency of nociceptive responses (sec) ± SEM (n = 7) *p <0.05 compared with the control group (Student’s t-test).

MPA (maximum possible analgesia) = (Test reaction time 2 Saline reaction time)/(10 2 Saline reaction time).

Table 3.  Effect of Ruellia tuberosa ethanol extract in mice observed in the acetic acid-induced writhing test.

Treatment	Dose (mg/kg)^*	Route of administration	Writhings^**	% of writhing	% of writhing inhibition
Control (1% aq. Tween 80)	10 mg/kg	p.o.	15.145 ± 1.511	100 ± 3.06	0%
Diclofenac Na	100	i.p.	5.0 ± 0.554^a	33.02 ± 3.66	66.98%
Ruellia tuberosa extract	250	p.o.	7.57 ± 0.945^a	49.99 ± 6.241	50.01%
	500	p.o	5.57 ± 1.035^a	36.79 ± 6.83	63.21%

^*Administered 45 min before 0.2 mL of 3% acetic acid administration (10 mL/kg, i.p.).

^**Counted for 20 min, starting 5 min after acetic acid administration.

^aP <0.05 versus control, Student’s t-test; values are mean ± SE (N = 7).

Table 4.  Effect of Ruellia tuberosa ethanol extracts in rats observed in the serotonin-induced edema test.

Treatment	Dose (mg/kg, p.o)^*	Edema volume (μL) (% inhibition)
		0 h	1 h	2 h	3 h	4 h
Control (1% aq. Tween 80 )	10 mL/kg	3.4 ± 0.364	7.3 ± 0.547	8.22 ± 0.542	6.96 ± 0.567	7.14 ± 0.351
Indomethacin	5 (i.p.)	2.68± 0.129	4.4 ± 0.570^** (39.726)	4.8 ± 0.651^** (41.605)	4.28 ± 0.681^** (38.505)	3.34 ± 0.540^** (53.221)
Ruellia tuberosa extract	100	2.7 ± 0.335	5.2 ± 0.821^** (28.767)	5.6 ± 0.570^** (31.873)	4.96 ± 0.343^** (28.735)	4.58 ± 0.772^** (35.854)
	200	2.8 ± 0.183	5.4 ± 0.570^** (26.027)	5.6 ± 1.036^** (31.873)	4.58 ± 0.526^** (34.195)	3.8 ± 0.209^** (46.778)
	300	2.8 ± 0.162	4.92 ± 0.227^** (32.602)	5.4 ± 0.670^** (34.306)	3.84 ± 0.586^** (44.847)	3.2 ± 0.497^** (55.182)

^*The initial hind paw volume of the rat was determined volumetrically. Thirty min after test agent administration (p.o.), 1% serotonin in saline was subcutaneously injected in a volume of 0.05 mL into the right hind paw at time 0 and the paw volume was measured at 1 h intervals for 5 h. Each point represents the mean ± SEM of 5 rats. *p <0.05, compared with the control group (Student’s t-test).

Inhibition (%) = 100(1- [a/b]), where a = mean paw volume of treated animals after egg albumin injection; b = mean paw volume of control animals after egg albumin injection.

Table 5.  Effect of Ruellia tuberosa ethanol extracts in rats observed in the egg albumin-induced edema test.

Treatment	^*Dose (mg/kg, p.o.)	Edema volume (μL) (% inhibition)
		1 h	2 h	3 h	4 h
Control (1% aq. Tween 80)	10 mL/kg	5.34 ± 0.643	5.74 ± 0.317	6.56 ± 0.851	7.118 ± 0.456
	5 (i.p.)	3.18 ± 0.341^** (40.449)	3.04 ± 0.222^** (47.038)	3.34 ± 0.168^** (49.085)	3.06 ± 0.201^** (57.010)
Ruellia tuberosa extracts	100	5.08 ± 0.230 (4.868)	4.26 ± 0.499^** (25.783)	4.04 ± 0.175^** (38.414)	4.06 ± 0.168^** (42.961)
	200	4.36 ± 0.627 (18.352)	3.98 ± 0.240^** (30.662)	3.78 ± 0.221^** (42.378)	3.68 ± 0.178^** (48.300)
	300	3.96 ± 0.097^** (25.842)	3.4 ± 0.310^** (40.76)	3.24 ± 0.130^** (50.609)	3.16 ± 0.109^** (55.605)

*The initial hind paw volume of the rat was determined volumetrically. Thirty min after test agent administration (p.o.), raw egg albumin in saline was subcutaneously injected in a volume of 0.5 mL into the right hind paw at time 0 and the paw volume was measured at 1 h intervals for 5 h. Each point represents the mean ± SEM of 5 rats. *p <0.05, compared with the control group (Student’s t-test).

Inhibition (%) = 100(1 − [a/b]) where a = mean paw volume of treated animals after egg albumin injection; b = mean paw volume of control animals after egg albumin injection.