Effects of Aulosira fertilisima against Cisplatin-Induced Nephrotoxicity and Oxidative Stress in Rats

Figures & data

Figure 1.  Percent superoxide radical scavenging activity of ethanol, methanol, and water extracts of A. fertilisima. Values are mean ± SD of five in vitro experiments.

Figure 2.  Effect of EEA (50 and 100 mg kg⁻¹ body wt) in development of body weight six days after the administration of cisplatin. Each value represents mean ± SD of six animals. *Statistically significant when compared to control (p < 0.01).

Figure 3.  Percent DPPH radical scavenging capacity of ethanol, methanol, and water extracts of A. fertilisima. Values are mean ± SD of five in vitro experiments.

Figure 4.  Effect of different doses of EEA in serum nitrite in cisplatin-treated rats. Values are mean ± SD of six animals in each group. Statistical analysis ANOVA followed by Dunnett t-test. *p < 0.01 as compared with group 1, ^†p < 0.01 as compared with group 2.

Table 1  Effect of ethanol extract of A. fertilisima on CIS-induced nephrotoxicity in rats

	Normal	CIS	CIS + EEA, 25 mg	CIS + EEA, 50 mg	CIS + EEA, 100 mg
BUN	13.64 ± 0.648	2.22 ± 2.99	67.98 ± 0.92^†	49.90 ± 0.80^†	22.87 ± 0.08^†
Serum creatinine (mg/dL)	0.26 ± 0.44	3.96 ± 1.21	2.66 ± 0.50^†	1.39 ± 0.54^†	0.59 ± 0.45^†
Creatinine clearance (mL/min)	0.98 ± 0.05	0.06 ± 0.06	0.45 ± 0.43^†	0.67 ± 0.68^†	0.81 ± 0.20^†
Urea clearance (mL/min)	0.66 ± 0.21	0.04 ± 0.09	0.35 ± 0.87^†	0.44 ± 0.99^†	0.54 ± 0.24^†

Values are mean ± SD of six animals in each group. Statistical analysis ANOVA followed by Dunnett t-test.

*p < 0.01 as compared with group 1, †p < 0.01 as compared with group 2.

Table 2  Effect of ethanol extract of A. fertilisima on lipid peroxidation in CIS-treated rats

Groups	TBARS (mM/100 g tissue)	CD (mM/100 g tissue)
1 Normal	1.23 ± 0.99	15.76 ± 0.41
2 CIS	1.96 ± 1.19	24.68 ± 0.74
3 CIS+EEA, 25 mg	1.79 ± 1.57^†	19.27 ± 0.98^†
4 CIS+EEA, 50 mg	1.52 ± 0.45^†	17.26 ± 0.54^†
5 CIS+EEA, 100 mg	1.33 ± 0.35^†	15.96 ± 1.09 ^†

Values are mean ± SD of six animals in each group. Statistical analysis ANOVA followed by Dunnett t-test.

*p < 0.01 as compared with group 1, †p < 0.01 as compared with group 2.

Table 3  Effect of ethanol extract of Aulosira fertilisima on activity of antioxidant enzymes in kidney of CIS treated animals

Groups	SOD	CAT	GPX	GST	GSH
1 Normal	5.79 ± 1.18	3.48 ± 1.64	156.09 ± 0.99	0.36 ± 1.80	0.76 ± 2.46
2 CIS	4.25 ± 1.19	0.88 ± 0.19	133.55 ± 2.94	0.18 ± 0.82	0.34 ± 2.22
3 CIS + EEA, 25 mg	4.34 ± 3.09^†	1.21 ± 0.88^†	139.30 ± 3.24^†	0.26 ± 2.68^†	0.50 ± 2.38^†
4 CIS + EEA, 50 mg	5.05 ± 2.56^†	1.87 ± 2.45^†	144.87 ± 3.54^†	0.30 ± 2.78^†	0.63 ± 1.99^†
5 CIS + EEA, 100 mg	5.48 ± 1.55^†	3.21 ± 1.67^†	154.78 ± 2.53^†	0.33 ± 2.38	0.71 ± 2.68^†

Values of SOD, CAT, GPX, and GST are expressed in U/mg protein; GSH is in mg/100 g tissue.

Values are mean ± SD of six animals in each group. Statistical analysis ANOVA followed by Dunnett t-test.

*p < 0.01 as compared with group 1, †p < 0.01 as compared with group 2.

Table 4  Effect of A. fertilisima treatment on morphological changes as assessed by histopathological examination of kidney in CIS-treated rats

Group	Tubular brush border loss	Interstitial edema	Tubular dilation	Necrosis of epithelium
Normal	—	—	—	—
CIS	+++	+++	+++	+++
CIS + EEN, 50 mg	++/−	++/−	++/−	++/−
CIS + EEN, 100 mg	+/−−	+/−−	+/−−	+/−−

Figure 5.  Photomicrographs of kidney sections of rat stained with haematoxylin and eosin (×100). (A) Haematoxylin- and eosin-stained sections of normal rat kidneys. (B) Kidney section of CIS-treated rats showing tubular brush border loss and necrosis of epithelium. (C) Kidney section of CIS + EEA, 50 mg-treated rats showing prevention of CIS-induced alterations. (D) Kidney section of CIS + EEA, 100 mg-treated rats showing prevention of CIS-induced alterations.