Cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in mice: protective role of Leea asiatica leaves

Figures & data

Figure 1. The total phenolic content and total flavonoid content of different extracts of Leea asiatica.

Table 1. Antioxidant activities of the extracts of L. asiatica leaf by using different in vitro models.

	In vitro and ex vivo models (IC50 µg/ml)
Extracts of L. asiatica	DPPH radical	Superoxide radical	Hydroxyl radical	Nitric oxide radical	Hydrogen peroxide	Fe^2+ chelating ability	Lipid peroxidation inhibition	Oxidative erythrocyte heamolysis inhibition
Methanol extract (MELA)	19.7 ± 0.23	29.9 ± 0.69	26.5 ± 0.81	17.9 ± 0.07	118.6 ± 1.50	114.6 ± 1.40	62.0 ± 0.88	55.1 ± 0.09
Ethyl acetate extract (EELA)	34.9 ± 0.31	41.0 ± 0.91	31.2 ± 1.01	31.0 ± 0.11	155.5 ± 2.07	157.0 ± 1.62	75.4 ± 0.80	59.7 ± 0.10
Petroleum ether extract (PELA)	43.5 ± 0.41	53.4 ± 1.13	51.0 ± 1.32	109.6 ± 0.43	385.4 ± 4.22	186.0 ± 1.59	104.9 ± 1.06	148.9 ± 0.18
Positive control	3.3 ± 0.01 (Ascorbic acid)	23.8 ± 0.89 (BHA)	20.8 ± 0.78 (Quercetin)	23.0 ± 0.08 (Ascorbic acid)	65.0 ± 1.32 (Gallic acid)	107.0 ± 1.23 (α-tocopherol)	75.9 ± 0.92 (Rutin)	45.3 ± 0.08 (Ascorbic acid)

Values are expressed as the mean ± SEM, (n = 3) with p < 0.05 compared to positive control group.

Table 2. Naphroprotective activity of methanol extracts of L. asiatica leaf.

Treatment	BUN (mg/dL)	Creatinine (mg/dL)	Uric acid (mg/dL)	Total protein (g/dL)	Albumin (g/dL)	MDA (nM/min/mg protein)
Normal control (vehicle)	13.31 ± 0.89	0.611 ± 0.04	5.91 ± 0.60	8.33 ± 0.76	3.63 ± 0.30	2.30 ± 0.22
Negative control (Cisplatin)	85.22 ± 5.08‡	2.88 ± 0.28‡	13.00 ± 1.34‡	2.70 ± 0.20‡	1.59 ± 0.29‡	5.19 ± 0.22‡
Rutin (20 mg/kg) + Cisplatin	26.65 ± 1.67‡	0.855 ± 0.17‡	6.05 ± 0.50‡	7.77 ± 0.63‡	3.80 ± 0.20‡	2.44 ± 0.27‡
MELA (150 mg/kg) + Cisplatin	56.12 ± 4.45‡	1.609 ± 0.27†	8.30 ± 0.70†	5.05 ± 0.44*	2.07 ± 0.22	3.21 ± 0.23†
MELA (300 mg/kg) + Cisplatin	39.02 ± 3.55‡	1.222 ± 0.20‡	6.22 ± 0.42‡	6.72 ± 0.50‡	3.25 ± 0.24†	2.44 ± 0.24‡

MELA, methanol extract of Leea asiatica. Values were expressed as mean ± S.E.M., (n = 6).

*p < 0.05, †p < 0.01, ‡p < 0.001 when drug treated group compared with negative control group and negative control group compared with normal control animals.

Table 3. Protective effect of fractions of L. asiatica leaf methanol extract against cisplatin induced nephrotoxicity.

Treatment	BUN (mg/dL)	Creatinine (mg/dL)	Uric acid (mg/dL)	Total protein (g/dL)	Albumin (g/dL)	MDA (nM/min/mg protein)
Normal control (vehicle)	12.39 ± 0.93	0.62 ± 0.049	5.01 ± 0.61	7.98 ± 0.86	3.41 ± 0.30	2.43 ± 0.27
Negative control (Cisplatin)	90.72 ± 4.80‡	2.58 ± 0.258‡	12.88 ± 1.40‡	2.51 ± 0.26‡	1.32 ± 0.11‡	4.12 ± 0.37‡
Rutin (20 mg/kg) + Cisplatin	27.06 ± 1.76‡	0.85 ± 0.137‡	5.55 ± 0.57‡	7.39 ± 0.73‡	3.17 ± 0.29‡	2.32 ± 0.20‡
MFLA (75 mg/kg) + Cisplatin	55.22 ± 4.44‡	1.40 ± 0.207‡	8.03 ± 0.67*	5.45 ± 0.31*	2.51 ± 0.23*	2.60 ± 0.21†
MFLA (150 mg/kg) + Cisplatin	36.12 ± 3.76‡	1.10 ± 0.200‡	6.31 ± 0.52‡	6.52 ± 0.53‡	2.75 ± 0.21‡	2.29 ± 0.22‡
EFLA (75 mg/kg) + Cisplatin	48.66 ± 4.50‡	1.27 ± 0.187‡	6.99 ± 0.47†	6.05 ± 0.61†	2.59 ± 0.19†	2.34 ± 0.24‡
EFLA (150 mg/kg) + Cisplatin	29.11 ± 1.88‡	0.93 ± 0.206‡	5.01 ± 0.39‡	7.32 ± 0.68‡	3.14 ± 0.21‡	2.11 ± 0.25‡
PFLA (75 mg/kg) + Cisplatin	79.88 ± 5.02	2.70 ± 0.256	13.01 ± 1.28	4.22 ± 0.37	1.44 ± 0.13	2.93 ± 0.26
PFLA (150 mg/kg) + Cisplatin	74.33 ± 4.99	2.32 ± 0.272	11.36 ± 1.37	4.32 ± 0.31	1.50 ± 0.20	2.79 ± 0.27*

MFLA, methanol fraction; EFMS, ethyl acetate fraction; PFMS, petroleum ether fraction obtained from MELA. Values were expressed as mean ± S.E.M., (n = 6).

*p < 0.05, †p < 0.01, ‡p < 0.001 when drug treated group compared with negative control group and negative control group compared with normal control animals.