Antidiarrheal mechanism of Carpolobia lutea leaf fractions in rats

Figures & data

Table 1  A numerical score based on stool consistency from the castor oil–induced diarrheal in C. lutea fractions.

Treatment	Onset of diarrhea (HRs)	Diarrhea Score			Total number of total feces	Percentage inhibition of watery stool (%)	Percentage inhibition total feces
		Normal stool	Semisolid stool	Watery Stool
Control	0.28 ± 0.4	0.33 ± 0.231	0.67 ± 0.46	22.5 ± 4.47	23.5 ± 4.32	—	—
ETF	1.86 ± 0.20	1.0 ± 0.70	1.67 ± 0.88	6.0 ± 3.06^a	8.67 ± 3.59^a	73.3	63.11
EAF	1.83 ± 0.70	0.83 ± 0.44	1.67 ± 1.83	2.54 ± 2.74^b	5.83 ± 3.24^b	88.7	75.19
CHF	2.55 ± 0.30^a	0.33 ± 0.23	1.0 ± 0.75	1.0 ± 0.69^b	2.33 ± 1.64^b	95.6	90.09
n-HF	1.60 ± 0.50	0.33 ± 0.37	2.0 ± 1.39	6.0 ± 2.55^a	8.33 ± 3.00^a	73.3	64.55
Diphen	2.71 ± 0.30^a	0.17 ± 0.18	0.00	0.00^b	0.17 ± 0.18^b	100.0	99.28

Significance relative to control: ^ap < 0.05; ^bp < 0.001; values represent mean ± SEM (n = 6).

ETF, ethanol fraction; EAF, ethyl acetate fraction; CHF, chloroform fraction; n-HF, n-hexane fraction; Diphen, diphenoxylate; CONT, control group.

Figure 1  Structures of isolated compounds from C. lutea.

Table 2  Effects of leaf extracts of C. lutea on castor oil–induced diarrhoeal in rats.

Treatment	Dose (mg/kg)	Diarrhea index	Inhibition (%)
Cont	—	23.50 ± 4.32	—
ETF	770	8.67 ± 3.59^a	63.11
EAF	770	5.83 ± 3.24^b	75.19
CHF	770	2.33 ± 1.64^b	90.09
n-HF	770	8.33 ± 3.00^a	64.55
Diphen	5 × 10^−3	0.17 ± 0.18^b	99.28
ETF + Yoh	770 + 1	4.17 ± 1.97^b	82.23
EAF + Yoh	770 + 1	3.50 ± 1.89^b	85.11
CHF + Yoh	770 + 1	5.17 ± 1.82^b	78.00
n-HF + Yoh	770 + 1	6.00 ± 2.17^b	74.45
ETF + IDN	770 + 1	50 0.00^b	100.00
EAF + IDN	770 + 150	1.33 ± 1.08^b	94.34
CHF + IDN	770 + 150	1.50 ± 1.12^b	93.60
n- HF+ IDN	770 + 150	2.50 ± 1.52^b	89.36
ETF + Diphen	770 + 5 × 10^−3	0.00^b	100.00
EAF + Diphen	770 + 5 × 10^−3	0.83^b	96.47
CHF + Diphen	770 + 5 × 10^−3	0.00^b	100.00
n- HF + Diphen	770 + 5 × 10^−3	0.00^b	100.00

Significance relative to control: ^ap < 0.01; ^bp < 0.001; values represent mean ±S.E.M (n = 6).

ETF, ethanol fraction; EAF, ethyl acetate fraction; CHF, chloroform fraction; n-HF, n-hexane fraction; Diphen, diphenoxylate; IDN, isosorbide dinitrate; Yoh, yohimbine.

Table 3  Effects of leaf extracts of C. lutea intestinal fluid accumulation in rats.

Treatment	Dose (Mg/kg)	Weight of intestinal content (g)	Volume of intestinal content (cm^−3)	inhibition (%)
CONT	—	3.16 ± 0.20	3.13 ± 0.30	—
ETF	770	3.61 ± 0.39	2.78 ± 0.30	11.18
EAF	770	3.36 ± 0.53	3.00 ± 0.52	4.15
CHF	770	3.69 ± 0.24	3.43 ± 0.45	−9.58
n-HF	770	3.43 ± 0.84	2.72 ± 0.49	13.10
Diphen	5.0 × 10^−3	2.39 ± 0.30	2.08 ± 0.36^a	33.55

Significance relative to control: ^ap < 0.01; values represent mean ±S.E.M (n = 6).

ETF, ethanol fraction; EAF, ethyl acetate fraction; CHF, chloroform fraction; n-HF, n-hexane fraction; Diphen, diphenoxylate; CONT, control group.

Table 4  Effects of leaf fractions of C. lutea on normal intestinal transit in rats.

Treatment	Dose (mg/kg)	Distance traveled by charcoal marker as % of total length of small intestine (Peristaltic index)	(Inhibition (%)
CONT	—	46.78 ± 8.20	—
ETF	770	74.25 ± 4.88^a	−58.72
EAF	770	0.00^a	100.00
CHF	770	90.80 ± 1.70^a	−94.10
n-HF	770	79.99 ± 4.46^a	−70.99
Diphen	5 × 10^−3	29.24 ± 9.98^a	37.49

Significance relative to control: ^ap < 0.001; values represent mean ± S.E.M (n = 6).

ETF, ethanol fraction; EAF, ethyl acetate fraction; CHF, chloroform fraction; n-HF, n-hexane fraction; Diphen, diphenoxylate; CONT, control group.