4.7 Article

Antidiabetic screening and scoring of 11 plants traditionally used in South Africa

Journal

JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY
Volume 119, Issue 1, Pages 81-86

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2008.05.031

Keywords

3T3-L1; C2C12; Chang liver; glucose utilisation; antidiabetic; medicinal plants; South Africa

Funding

  1. Department of Science and Technology in South Africa [TM1002FP]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To investigate the traditional antidiabetic uses of indigenous or naturalised South African plants using an optimised screening and scoring method. Materials and methods: Eleven plant species were screened against Chang liver,3T3-L1 adipose and C2C12 muscle cells measuring glucose utilisation in all three cell lines and toxicity in the hepatocytes and adipocytes only. A scoring system was devised to aid interpretation of results. Results: Catharanthus roseus results correlated with previously reported in vivo results, with best stimulation of glucose utilisation in hepatocytes. Momordica foetida and Momordica balsamina extracts were active in myocytes but only the latter stimulated glucose utilisation in hepatocytes. Brachylaena discolor gave the best overall results, with all plant parts giving high activity scores and negligible toxicity. In vitro toxicity results for Catharanthus roseus, Vinca major, Momordica balsamina and some Sclerocarya birrea extracts raise concern for chronic use. Conclusion: This screening system increases the likelihood of identifying drug candidates using in vitro antidiabetic screening of crude plant extracts, whilst the scoring system aids data interpretation. Ethnopharmacological relevance: The multitude of metabolic steps affected by Type 11 diabetes offer many drug targets but they complicate in vitro screening to validate traditional uses or find new drug leads from plants. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available