Antihyperglycemic Activity of the Aqueous Stem Extract of Coscinium fenestratum. in Non–insulin Dependent Diabetic Rats

Figures & data

Table 1.. Effect of aqueous stem extract of Coscinium fenestratum. on oral glucose tolerance test.

		Blood glucose concentration (mg/dl)
Group	Treatment	0 min	30 min	60 min	90 min	120 min
I	Control (vehicle)	88.6 ± 9.8	110 ± 2.3	104 ± 11.8	101.5 ± 13.4	97.5 ± 6.2
II	Aq. extract (250 mg/kg)	82.4 ± 7.9	101 ± 11.2^a.	97.3 ± 8.5	92.7 ± 8.4^a.	89.7 ± 7.5^a.
III	Aq. extract (500 mg/kg)	80.2 ± 3.2	98.9 ± 7.3^a.	92.1 ± 8.9^a.	88.1 ± 7.7^a.	86.3 ± 9.4^a.
IV	Glibenclamide (0.25 mg/kg)	82.1 ± 5.1	85.7 ± 6.1^a.	78.9 ± 2.7^a.	76.5 ± 5.2^a.	68.6 ± 3.9^a.

Each value represents mean ± SE, n = 6.

^a.Represents statistical significance vs. control (p < 0.05).

Table 2.. Effect of aqueous stem extract of Coscinium fenestratum. on normal animals.

		Blood glucose concentration (mg/dl)
Group	Treatment	Day 0	Day 5	Day 12
I	Control (vehicle)	74.3 ± 1.7	74.8 ± 3.6	75.4 ± 4.8
II	Aq. extract (250 mg/kg)	78.7 ± 9.6	74.3 ± 6.1	70.1 ± 5.3^a.
III	Aq. extract (500 mg/kg)	72.3 ± 5.4	68.8 ± 2.9^a.	63.1 ± 2.6^a.
IV	Glibenclamide (0.25 mg/kg)	74.7 ± 5.7	67.2 ± 5.9^a.	59.8 ± 4.0^a.

Each value represents mean ± SE, n = 6.

^a.Represents statistical significance vs. control (p < 0.05).

Table 3.. Effect of aqueous stem extract of Coscinium fenestratum. on diabetic animals.

		Blood glucose concentration (mg/dl)
Group	Treatment	Day 0	Day 5	Day 12
I	Diabetic control	223.7 ± 18.6	230 ± 11.6	231.4 ± 14.3
II	Aq. extract (250 mg/kg)	171.3 ± 11.3	141.3 ± 18.5^a.	118.3 ± 13.4^a.
III	Aq. extract (500 mg/kg)	169.8 ± 15.4	126.8 ± 12.9^a.	96.3 ± 18.7^a.
IV	Glibenclamide (0.25 mg/kg)	187.7 ± 15.7	126.2 ± 13.9^a.	103.8 ± 14.0^a.

Each value represents mean ± SE, n = 6.

^a.Represents statistical significance vs. control (p < 0.05).

Table 4.. Effect of aqueous stem extract of Coscinium fenestratum. on serum insulin and glycosylated hemoglobin (whole blood) in diabetic rats.

Group	Treatment	Insulin (µU/ml)	Glycosylated hemoglobin (%)
I	Normal	125.7 ± 15.3	3.2 ± 0.5
II	Diabetic control	95.4 ± 9.8	7.1 ± 0.2
III	Aq. extract (250 mg/kg)	99.9 ± 8.4	5.1 ± 0.3^a.,^b.
IV	Aq. extract (500 mg/kg)	98.5 ± 7.9	4.9 ± 0.2^a.,^b.

Each value represents mean ± SE, n = 6.

^a.Represents statistical significance vs. control (p < 0.05).

^b.Represents statistical significance vs. normal (p < 0.05).

Table 5.. Effect of aqueous stem extract of Coscinium fenestratum. on serum lipid profile in diabetic rats.

Group	Treatment	Triglyceride (mg/dl)	Total cholesterol (mg/dl)	HDL cholesterol (mg/dl)
I	Normal	92.4 ± 1.7	59.3 ± 2.6	53.0 ± 3.2
II	Diabetic control	183.0 ± 13.2	123.9 ± 15.2	35.2 ± 2.7
III	Aq. extract (250 mg/kg)	132.8 ± 11.3^a.,^b.	73.5 ± 1.3^a.,^b.	39.2 ± 6.3^a.,^b.
IV	Aq. extract (500 mg/kg)	98.3 ± 4.7^a.,^b.	64.7 ± 6.7^a.,^b.	47.4 ± 2.7^a.,^b.

Each value represents mean ± SE, n = 6. HDL, high-density lipoprotein.

^a.Represents statistical significance vs. control (p < 0.05).

^b.Represents statistical significance vs. normal (p < 0.05).

Table 6.. Effect of aqueous stem extract of Coscinium fenestratum. on changes in body weight in diabetic rats.

Group	Treatment	Initial (g)	Final (g)
I	Diabetic control	273.3 ± 14.2	201.9 ± 13.2
II	Aq. extract (250 mg/kg)	224.7 ± 17.4	215.4 ± 16.3^a.
III	Aq. extract (500 mg/kg)	247.5 ± 15.6	233.9 ± 12.7^a.

Each value represents mean ± SE, n = 6.

^a.Represents statistical significance vs. control (p < 0.05).

Table 7.. Effect of aqueous stem extract of Coscinium fenestratum. on liver glycogen and TBARS level in diabetic rats.

			TBARS (mM/mg)
Group	Treatment	Liver glycogen (mg/kg)	Liver	Pancreas
I	Normal	3.9 ± 0.6	0.14 ± 0.01	0.08 ± 0.05
II	Diabetic control	1.2 ± 0.1	0.30 ± 0.03	0.18 ± 0.00
III	Aq. extract (250 mg/kg)	1.7 ± 0.2^a.	26 ± 0.02^a.	0.13 ± 0.01^a.,^b.
IV	Aq. extract (500 mg/kg)	1.9 ± 0.3^a.,^b.	0.20 ± 0.05^a.,^b.	0.11 ± 0.02^a.,^b.

Each value represents mean ± SE, n = 6. TBARS, Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances.

^a.Represents statistical significance vs. control (p < 0.05).

^b.Represents statistical significance vs. Normal (p < 0.05).