4.7 Article

Rat electropharmacograms of the flavonoids rutin and quercetin in comparison to those of moclobemide and clinically used reference drugs suggest antidepressive and/or neuroprotective action

期刊

PHYTOMEDICINE
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 287-294

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2009.02.005

关键词

Herbals; Electropharmacogram; Field potential; Spectral analysis; Rutin; Quercetin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to be able to test single constituents of herbal plant extracts with respect to possible clinical usefulness, the model of local field potential analysis leading to the so-called electropharmacogram has been successfully used in rats to classify the effects of theanine and theogallin in the past. The present investigation aims at the prediction of efficacy and possible mechanisms of action of rutin and quercetin. Adult rats (day-night converted) were instrumented with four bipolar concentric electrodes into the frontal cortex, hippocampus, striatum and reticular formation. Field potentials were recorded during a pre-drug reference period of 45 min followed by oral administration of the particular test compound and 4 It recording thereafter. Data were transmitted wirelessly to the computer for spectral frequency analysis. Rutin (5-80 mg/kg) as well as quercetin (5-40 mg/kg orally) produced similar electropharmacograms with dose dependent decreases of spectral alpha2 and beta I frequencies within all brain areas. Peak effects were reached 4 h after administration. The pattern of changes approached that obtained after 2.5 mg/kg of moclobemide during the first hour as revealed. by discriminant analysis in comparison to a large matrix of other drugs with known clinical indications. Data suggest antidepressant capabilities for rutin and quercetin with inhibition of monoamino oxidase at least as part of the mechanism of action. Both compounds should be tested clinically in patients with symptoms of depression. (C) 2009 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据