4.7 Article

Antiulcerogenic and analgesic effects of Maytenus aquifolium, Sorocea bomplandii and Zolernia ilicifolia

期刊

JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 41-47

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-8741(01)00268-9

关键词

medicinal plants; analgesic; antiulcerogenic; Celastraceae; Moraceae; Fabaceae

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Maytenus aquifolium (Celastraceae), Sorocea bomplandii (Moraceae) and Zolernia ilicifolia (Fabaceae) are native plants from the Tropical Atlantic Forest (Mata Atlantica, Brazil) known a 'espinheira-santa'. These plants are traditionally used as analgesic and antiulcerogenic medicine, with the same traditional uses of the true 'espinheira-santa' (Maytenus ilicifolia, Celastraceae), an efficient antiulcerogenic agent. Pharmacological and toxicological studies with these plants have not been carried out. The purpose in this study was to evaluate the efficacy (analgesic and antiulcerogenic activities), safety (acute toxicity) and quality (phytochemical profile) of these three plants. The analgesic effect was analyzed by writhing and tail flick tests, while anti Ulcerogenic effect was performed through ulcer induction by ethanol and indomethacin/bethanecol assays. LD., and acute toxic effects, as well as phytochemical profiles of all plants also were carried. Surprisingly, the three plants showed analgesic and antiulcerogenic effects at dose of 1000 mg/kg, v.o. Maytenus aquifolium lowering all ulcerogenic parameters (ethanol test), but increased the ulcerogenic effects in the indoniethacin/bethanecol test. Sorocea bomplandii produced antiulcerogenic effects in both experimental models used, while Zolernia ilicifolia showed significant effects only in indomethacin/bethanecol-induced gastric lesions. Pre-treatment with Zolernia ilicifolia induced someone toxic effects, A phytochemical profile for each plant species was determined and its main chemical classes of compounds were described. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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