3.8 Article

Investigation of Antidepressant, Anxiolytic and Sedative Activities of the Aqueous Leaf Extract of Musa sapientum Linn. (Banana; Musaceae)

期刊

DRUG RESEARCH
卷 69, 期 3, 页码 136-143

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-0651-7978

关键词

Forced swimming test; antidepressant activity; mental disorders; fluoxetine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundMusa sapientum Linn. (Musaceae) is used in traditional African medicine in the management of mental disorders. This study was conducted to evaluate the central nervous system activities of the aqueous leaf extract of M. sapientum (MS) . Materials and methods MS (50, 100 and 200mg/kg, p.o .) was administered to separate groups of mice 1h before behavioural studies. The antidepressant effect was studied using the forced swimming test (FST) and tail suspension test (TST) while the elevated plus maze (EPM) and the hole-board tests were used to evaluate the anxiolytic effect. The probable mechanism of antidepressant-like effect was also investigated. Results MS (50, 100 and 200mg/kg) produced significant ( P< 0.0001) reduction in the duration of immobility with peak effect at 200mg/kg (79.6%) in FST and 66.9 % in TST respectively when compared with control. The pre-treatment of mice with prazosin ( (1) -adrenoceptor antagonist, 62.5 mu g/kg, i.p. ) and sulpiride (dopamine D (2) receptor antagonist, 50mg/kg, i.p. ) significantly prevented the antidepressant effect produced by MS in FST. However, pre-treatment of mice with metergoline (5-HT (2) receptor antagonist, 4mg/kg, i.p .) and yohimbine ( (2) -adrenoceptor antagonist, 1mg/kg, i.p. ) did not prevent the antidepressant effect of MS. In the EPM test, MS did not significantly increase open arm exploration. It also did not significantly increase the number of head dips in the hole-board test. Conclusions Results showed that MS had antidepressant activity possibly mediated through (1) -adrenergic and D (2) dopaminergic receptors, without significant anxiolytic effect.

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

3.8
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