Figures & data
Figure 2. IC50 values of the Glycyrrhiza glabra flavonoid fraction in comparison with curcumin in three different tests.
![Figure 2. IC50 values of the Glycyrrhiza glabra flavonoid fraction in comparison with curcumin in three different tests.](/cms/asset/3c71c268-76e8-4a6f-bbc6-5301e87339a4/iphb_a_1063673_f0002_b.jpg)
Figure 3. Effect of pharmacological interventions on seizure severity score. All values are represented as mean ± SEM; n = 6, ap < 0.05 as compared with PTZ-control; bp < 0.05 as compared with phenytoin per se. GGFF, Glycyrrhiza glabra flavonoid fraction.
![Figure 3. Effect of pharmacological interventions on seizure severity score. All values are represented as mean ± SEM; n = 6, ap < 0.05 as compared with PTZ-control; bp < 0.05 as compared with phenytoin per se. GGFF, Glycyrrhiza glabra flavonoid fraction.](/cms/asset/c308bf3b-f8d9-4aa6-8d29-7be4139f7245/iphb_a_1063673_f0003_b.jpg)
Figure 4. Effect of pharmacological interventions on number of mistakes. All values are represented as mean ± SEM; n = 6, ap < 0.05 as compared with naive, bp < 0.05 as compared with PTZ-control; cp < 0.05 as compared with phenytoin per se; a′p < 0.05 as compared with day 5. NM, no mistakes; GGFF, Glycyrrhiza glabra flavonoid fraction.
![Figure 4. Effect of pharmacological interventions on number of mistakes. All values are represented as mean ± SEM; n = 6, ap < 0.05 as compared with naive, bp < 0.05 as compared with PTZ-control; cp < 0.05 as compared with phenytoin per se; a′p < 0.05 as compared with day 5. NM, no mistakes; GGFF, Glycyrrhiza glabra flavonoid fraction.](/cms/asset/0b46ec80-44a3-4ed0-9462-c0a172effd63/iphb_a_1063673_f0004_b.jpg)
Figure 5. Effect of pharmacological interventions on step down latency. All values are represented as mean ± SEM; n = 6, ap < 0.05 as compared with naive, bp < 0.05 as compared with PTZ-control; cp < 0.05 as compared with phenytoin per se. a′p < 0.05 as compared with day 5. GGFF, Glycyrrhiza glabra flavonoid fraction.
![Figure 5. Effect of pharmacological interventions on step down latency. All values are represented as mean ± SEM; n = 6, ap < 0.05 as compared with naive, bp < 0.05 as compared with PTZ-control; cp < 0.05 as compared with phenytoin per se. a′p < 0.05 as compared with day 5. GGFF, Glycyrrhiza glabra flavonoid fraction.](/cms/asset/f7748ecc-e4e2-4928-872f-ca06677f4f4c/iphb_a_1063673_f0005_b.jpg)
Figure 6. Effect of intervention of drugs on biochemical estimations. All values are represented as mean ± SEM; n = 6, ap < 0.05 as compared with the naive group; bp < 0.05 as compared with PTZ-control; cp < 0.05 as compared with phenytoin per se. (A) TBARS level in nmoles/mg protein; (B) GSH level in µ moles/mg protein; (C) catalase activity in µ moles of H2O2 oxidized/mg of protein. TBARS, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; GSH, reduced glutathione; CAT, catalase; GGFF, Glycyrrhiza glabra flavonoid fraction.
![Figure 6. Effect of intervention of drugs on biochemical estimations. All values are represented as mean ± SEM; n = 6, ap < 0.05 as compared with the naive group; bp < 0.05 as compared with PTZ-control; cp < 0.05 as compared with phenytoin per se. (A) TBARS level in nmoles/mg protein; (B) GSH level in µ moles/mg protein; (C) catalase activity in µ moles of H2O2 oxidized/mg of protein. TBARS, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; GSH, reduced glutathione; CAT, catalase; GGFF, Glycyrrhiza glabra flavonoid fraction.](/cms/asset/01f76754-2247-4df1-ba0d-7223f807e547/iphb_a_1063673_f0006_b.jpg)