Antioxidant activity and hepatoprotective effect of 10 medicinal herbs on CCl4-induced liver injury in mice

doi:10.3748/wjg.v26.i37.5629

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 26, Issue 37

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (8063)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-5) series, Tables (1-4) series.

Item

Count

PDF

460

WORD

282

HTML

4730

Figures (1-5)

443

Tables (1-4)

302

Sum=6217

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

601

Download

1245

Sum=1846

Oct 7, 2020 (publication date) through Feb 5, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (34)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Basic Study

World J Gastroenterol. Oct 7, 2020; 26(37): 5629-5645
Published online Oct 7, 2020. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i37.5629

Table 1 Ferric-reducing antioxidant power, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity, total phenolic content, and total flavonoid content values of ten medicinal herbs (n = 8)

Scientific name of original medicinal plant	Parts with medicinal properties	FRAP value	TEAC value	TPC value	TFC value
Scientific name of original medicinal plant	Parts with medicinal properties	(μmol Fe²⁺/g DW)	(μmol TE/g DW)	(mg GAE/g DW)	(mg QE/g DW)
Acanthopanax senticosus (Rupr. et Maxim.) Harms	Root and rhizome	53.07 ± 0.23^e	54.70 ± 3.73^d	2.05 ± 0.16^d	0.44 ± 0.01^e
Amomum villosum Lour.	Fruit	219.85 ± 14.44^c	210.18 ± 23.88^c	18.42 ± 0.25^c	1.98 ± 0.07^c,d
Amomum kravanh Pierre ex Gagnep.	Fruit	29.80 ± 0.29^e	37.34 ± 1.02^d	18.49 ± 0.70^c	0.32 ± 0.01^e
Artemisia capillaris Thunb.	Herb	146.71 ± 2.91^d	208.16 ± 1.42^c	19.06 ± 0.21^c	1.55 ± 0.11^d
Cimicifuga heracleifolia Kom.	Rhizome	191.25 ± 6.38^c,d	214.60 ± 25.17^c	17.07 ± 0.28^c	0.40 ± 0.06^e
Coptis chinensis Franch.	Rhizome	557.04 ± 4.73^b	450.36 ± 27.23^b	50.15 ± 1.14^b	7.39 ± 0.39^b
Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch.	Root and rhizome	29.85 ± 2.10^e	53.09 ± 2.59^d	5.70 ± 0.04^d	3.71 ± 0.19^c
Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi	Flower	216.53 ± 11.34^c	213.25 ± 9.65^c	14.18 ± 0.11^c	2.86 ± 0.35^c
Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi	Root	554.38 ± 3.92^b	454.06 ± 8.14^b	45.06 ± 0.07^b	6.84 ± 0.08^b
Sanguisorba officinalis L.	Root	1141.88 ± 81.16^a	1554.48 ± 68.58^a	91.59 ± 0.00^a	14.93 ± 0.24^a

^a,b,c,d,eP < 0.05, different superscript letters indicate statistical significance. DW: dried weight; FRAP: ferric-reducing antioxidant power; GAE: gallic acid equivalent; QE: quercetin equivalent; TE: Trolox equivalent; TEAC: Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; TFC: total flavonoid content; TPC: total phenolic content.

Table 2 Correlation analysis between ferric-reducing antioxidant power, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity, total phenolic content, and total flavonoid content values

Correlation Coefficient (R²)	FRAP value (μmol Fe²⁺/g DW)	TEAC value (μmol TE/g DW)	TPC value (mg GAE/g DW)	TFC value (mg QE/g DW)
FRAP value	1	0.9340	0.9600	0.9139
TEAC value	-	1	0.9013	0.8729
TPC value	-	-	1	0.8829
TFC value	-	-	-	1

DW: Dried weight; FRAP: Ferric-reducing antioxidant power; GAE: Gallic acid equivalent; TE: Trolox equivalent; TEAC: Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; TFC: Total flavonoid content; TPC: Total phenolic content; QE: quercetin equivalent.

Table 3 Online analytical processing cubes based on systematic cluster analysis for indicators of CCl₄-induced liver injury, antioxidant activity, total phenolic content, and total flavonoid content (cluster number = 3)

		ALT	AST	ALP	TBIL	sTG	SOD	CAT	GSH	MDA	FRAP	TEAC	TPC	TFC
Clt 1	Sum	1080.59	3017.02	1640.70	16.89	9.48	1997.54	349.62	91.24	11.58	887.06	991.32	94.97	11.26
AV	n	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7
AS	mean	154.37	431.00	234.39	2.41	1.35	285.36	49.95	13.03	1.65	126.72	141.62	13.57	1.61
AK	SD	27.92	82.89	15.86	0.20	0.09	7.67	9.92	2.17	0.22	87.09	87.42	6.89	1.33
GU	% of TS	78.9%	78.6%	73.5%	72.5%	72.0%	68.9%	64.1%	61.6%	74.2%	28.2%	28.7%	33.7%	27.9%
AC	% of TN	70.0%	70.0%	70.0%	70.0%	70.0%	70.0%	70.0%	70.0%	70.0%	70.0%	70.0%	70.0%	70.0%
CH
PF
Clt 2	Sum	193.77	567.29	398.53	4.39	2.46	595.96	128.15	37.99	2.74	1111.42	904.42	95.21	14.23
CC	n	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
PR	mean	96.89	283.65	199.27	2.20	1.23	297.98	64.08	19.00	1.37	555.71	452.21	47.61	7.12
	SD	4.79	9.30	13.09	0.19	0.06	1.27	2.10	1.10	0.04	1.88	2.62	3.60	0.39
	% of TS	14.1%	14.8%	17.9%	18.8%	18.7%	20.6%	23.5%	25.7%	17.6%	35.4%	26.2%	33.8%	35.2%
	% of TN	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%	20.0%
Clt 3	Sum	95.34	256.05	192.78	2.03	1.23	304.69	67.44	18.85	1.28	1141.88	1554.48	91.59	14.93
SO	n	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
	mean	95.34	256.05	192.78	2.03	1.23	304.69	67.44	18.85	1.28	1141.88	1554.48	91.59	14.93
	SD	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/
	% of TS	7.0%	6.7%	8.6%	8.7%	9.3%	10.5%	12.4%	12.7%	8.2%	36.4%	45.1%	32.5%	36.9%
	% of TN	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%
Total	Sum	1369.70	3840.36	2232.01	23.31	13.17	2898.19	545.21	148.08	15.60	3140.36	3450.22	281.77	40.42
	n	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10
	mean	136.97	384.04	223.20	2.33	1.32	289.82	54.52	14.81	1.56	314.04	345.02	28.18	4.04
	SD	36.16	101.81	22.67	0.22	0.10	9.71	11.01	3.38	0.23	348.53	449.84	27.02	4.59
	% of TS	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
	% of TN	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

ALT: Alanine transaminase; AST: Aspartate transaminase; ALP: Alkaline phosphatase; TBIL: Total bilirubin; sTG: Serum triglycerides; SOD: Superoxide dismutase; CAT: Catalase; GSH: Glutathione; MDA: Malondialdehyde; FRAP: Ferric-reducing antioxidant power; TEAC: Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; TPC: Total phenolic content; TFC: Total flavonoid content; Clt: Cluster; SD: Standard deviation; TN: Total number; TS: Total sum; AS: Acanthopanax senticosus; AV: Amomum villosum; AK: Amomum kravanh; AC: Artemisia capillaris; CH: Cimicifuga heracleifolia; CC: Coptis chinensis; GU: Glycyrrhiza uralensis; PF: Pueraria lobata flower; PR: Pueraria lobata root; SO: Sanguisorba officinalis.

Table 4 Identification of the main phytochemical components in Sanguisorba officinalis decoction using high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization source-ion trap tandem mass spectrometry (positive or negative mode)

Peak	RT (min)	λ_max (nm)	[M+H]⁺	[M-H]^-	MS/MS fragments	MW	Putative compound	Ref.
1	7.10	270	/	169	125	170	Gallic acid¹	[33]
2	10.52	275	/	345; 865	313, 169, 151, 125; 739, 695, 577, 543, 407, 287	346; 866	Galloyl-methylglucoside; Procyanidin C2	[33]
3	16.10	278	291	/	273, 165, 151, 139, 123	290	(+)-Catechin¹	[33]
4	20.87	275	/	729	577, 559, 407	730	Procyanidin B3 3-O-gallate	[33]
5	22.35	274	563	/	545, 423, 411, 435, 393, 271	562	Fisetinidol-(4α/β→8)-(+)-catechin	[33]
6	23.65	272	/	1103	1059, 935, 633, 469	1104	Sanguiin H-2	[31]
7	54.30	264/362	/	277	197, 182, 111	278	Methoxygallic acid methyl ester 5-O-sulfate	[32]
8	68.30	243/372	345	/	330, 313	344	3,3’,4’-O-trimethylellagic acid	[33]

¹Identification of phytochemical compounds by high-performance liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry (MS), and MS/MS using commercial standards or based on published values[31-33]. RT: Retention time; λmax: Maximum absorbance wavelength; MS: Mass spectrometry; MW: Molecular weight.

Citation: Meng X, Tang GY, Liu PH, Zhao CJ, Liu Q, Li HB. Antioxidant activity and hepatoprotective effect of 10 medicinal herbs on CCl₄-induced liver injury in mice. World J Gastroenterol 2020; 26(37): 5629-5645
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v26/i37/5629.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v26.i37.5629