Antitumor efficacy and amelioration of oxidative stress by Trichosanthes dioica root against Ehrlich ascites carcinoma in mice

Figures & data

Table 1.  Influence of TDA on body weight of normal and EAC bearing mice.

Treatment	Initial body weight (g)	Final body weight (g)
Normal saline (3 mL/kg)	21.12 ± 0.78	21.17 ± 1.20
EAC control (2 × 10^6 cells/mouse)	21.27 ± 0.63	26.24 ± 0.74^§a
EAC + TDA (5 mg/kg)	20.65 ± 1.16	24.85 ± 0.58*^b
EAC + TDA (10 mg/kg)	21.54 ± 0.86	22.08 ± 1.12*^b
EAC + 5-FU (20 mg/kg)	20.89 ± 1.02	21.21 ± 0.91*^a

Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 6); ^§final body weight of EAC control group vs. normal control group; *final body weight of all treated groups vs. EAC control group, ^ap < 0.001, ^bp < 0.05.

5-FU, 5-Fluorouracil.

Table 2.  Influence of TDA on tumor volume, tumor weight, packed cell volume, cell counts, median survival time (MST) and life span (% ILS) in EAC bearing mice.

Treatment	Tumor volume (mL)	Tumor weight (g)	Packed cell volume (mL)	Viable cell count (×10^6 cells /mL)	Non-viable cell count (×10^6 cells /mL)	MST (days)	Increase in life span (% ILS)
Normal saline (3 mL/kg)	—	—	—	—	—	All animals alive	All animals alive
EAC control (2 × 10^6 cells/mouse)	4.08 ± 0.35	4.63 ± 0.87	2.25 ± 0.18	8.03 ± 0.13	0.57 ± 0.04	19.42 ± 1.58	—
EAC + TDA (5 mg/kg)	2.35 ± 0.07*^a	2.56 ± 0.05*^a	0.77 ± 0.06*^a	3.11 ± 0.11*^a	1.15 ± 0.09*^a	27.93 ± 1.35*^a	43.82
EAC + TDA (10 mg/kg)	1.28 ± 0.27*^a	1.41 ± 0.26*^a	0.18 ± 0.21*^a	1.22 ± 1.07*^a	2.90 ± 0.03*^a	38.68 ± 1.12*^a	99.18*^a
EAC + 5-FU (20 mg/kg)	0.31 ± 0.06*^a	0.35 ± 0.13*^a	—	0.76 ± 0.07*^a	3.34 ± 0.05*^a	42.86 ± 1.64*^a	120.70*^a

Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 6).

*all treated groups vs. EAC control group, ^ap < 0.001.

5-FU, 5-Fluorouracil.

Table 3.  Influence of TDA on hematological parameters of normal and EAC bearing mice.

Treatment	Hb content (g/dL)	RBC (cells ×10^6/mm^3)	WBC (cells ×10^3/mm^3)	Differential count
				Monocytes (%)	Neutrophils (%)	Lymphocytes (%)
Normal saline (3 mL/kg)	12.33 ± 0.15	5.34 ± 0.31	3.86 ± 0.26	1.91 ± 0.06	20.78 ± 1.16	72.46 ± 1.88
EAC control (2 × 10^6 cells/mouse)	5.80 ± 0.46^§a	2.54 ± 0.17^§a	5.76 ± 0.72^§a	1.24 ± 0.05^§a	68.17 ± 0.98^§a	30.28 ± 1.57^§a
EAC + TDA (5 mg/kg)	8.37 ± 0.18*^a	3.26 ± 0.42*^b	4.58 ± 0.63*^b	1.52 ± 0.04*^b	37.72 ± 1.27*^a	57.27 ± 2.08*^a
EAC + TDA (10 mg/kg)	10.46 ± 0.23*^a	4.68 ± 0.15*^a	3.71 ± 0.12*^a	1.85 ± 0.06*^a	25.46 ± 1.15*^a	68.29 ± 1.96*^a
EAC + 5-FU (20 mg/kg)	11.85 ± 0.36*^a	5.22 ± 0.29*^a	3.82 ± 0.23*^a	1.88 ± 0.07*^a	22.20 ± 1.58*^a	70.75 ± 1.32*^a

Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 6).

^§EAC control group vs. normal control group; *all treated groups vs. EAC control group, ^ap < 0.001, ^bp < 0.05.

5-FU, 5-Fluorouracil.

Table 4.  Influence of TDA on liver antioxidant parameters of normal and EAC bearing mice.

Treatment	MDA (µM/g of wet liver tissue)	GSH (µg/g of wet liver tissue)	GST (nM CDNB-GSH conjugate/min/mg of protein)	SOD (IU/mg of wet liver tissue)	CAT (µM of H2O2 decomposed/min/mg of wet liver tissue)
Normal saline (3 mL/kg)	167 ± 0.02	29.2 ± 0.23	16.4 ± 0.13	8.7 ± 0.28	38 ± 0.14
EAC control (2 × 10^6 cells/mouse)	494 ± 0.03^§a	8.2 ± 0.46^§a	7.3 ± 0.09^§a	3.4 ± 0.63^§a	8 ± 0.25^§a
EAC + TDA (5 mg/kg)	249 ± 0.06*^a	17.3 ± 0.19*^a	10.4 ± 0.21*^b	4.8 ± 0.44*^b	13 ± 0.17*^b
EAC + TDA (10 mg/kg)	182 ± 0.03*^a	25.8 ± 0.33*^a	15.2 ± 0.17*^a	6.6 ± 0.34*^a	27 ± 0.30*^a
EAC + 5-FU (20 mg/kg)	213 ± 0.01*^a	27.9 ± 0.12*^a	16.2 ± 0.10*^a	7.3 ± 0.59*^a	33 ± 0.15*^a

Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 6).

^§EAC control group vs. normal control group; *all treated groups vs. EAC control group, ^ap < 0.001, ^bp < 0.05.

5-FU, 5-Fluorouracil.