4.7 Article

Anti-diabetic potentials of Momordica charantia and Andrographis paniculata and their effects on estrous cyclicity of alloxan-induced diabetic rats

期刊

JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 105, 期 1-2, 页码 196-200

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2005.10.018

关键词

Momordica charantia; Andrographis paniculata; diabetes; alloxan; estrous cycle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Momordica charantia and Andrographis paniculata are the commonly used herbs by the diabetic patients in Pampanga, Philippines. While the anti-diabetic potential of Momordica charantia is well established in streptozocin- or alloxan-induced diabetic animals, the anti-diabetic potential of Andrographis paniculata in alloxan-induced diabetic rat is not known. Neither the effects of these herbs on estrous cyclicity of alloxan-induced diabetic rats are elucidated. Thus, in these experiments, Momordica charantia fruit juice or Andrographis paniculata decoction was orally administered to alloxan-induced diabetic rats. Rats that were treated with Momordica charantia and Andrographis paniculata had higher body weight (BW) compared with diabetic positive control (P < 0.01) from day 22 to day 27 (D27) but exhibited lower BW than the non-diabetic control (P < 0.05). These rats had lower feed (P < 0.05) and liquid intakes (P < 0.01) compared with diabetic positive control from day 17 to D27, but similar with the non-diabetic control. The blood glucose levels in these groups were significantly reduced from day 12 to D27 compared with diabetic positive control (P < 0.01), however, comparable with non-diabetic control. The diabetic positive control had extended mean estrous cycles (8 days) compared to Momordica charantia and Andrographis paniculata-treated diabetic rats (5 days; P < 0.05). Our results suggest that the anti-diabetic potentials of Momordica charantia and Andrographis paniculata could restore impaired estrous cycle in alloxan-induced diabetic rats. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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