↓ Skip to main content

Phytochemical investigation and nephroprotective potential of Sida cordata in rat

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Phytochemical investigation and nephroprotective potential of Sida cordata in rat
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12906-017-1896-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naseer Ali Shah, Muhammad Rashid Khan, Dereje Nigussie

Abstract

Plants are an efficient source of natural antioxidant against free radicals causing kidney damages. Sida cordata ethyl acetate fraction has been reported for strong in vitro antioxidant potency, previously. In the present study, our objective was to evaluate its in vivo antioxidant potency against CCl4 induced nephrotoxicity and investigates the bioactive phytochemicals by HPLC-DAD analysis. Phytochemical analysis was performed by HPLC-DAD methodology. For in vivo study, 42 male Sprague-Dawley rats were treated with alternatively managed doses for 60 days. Group I animals were remained untreated. Group II animals were treated with vehicle (1 mL of olive oil) by intragastric route on alternate days. Group III was treated with 30% CCl4 (1 mL/kg b.w.) i.p. Group IV was treated with 30% CCl4 (1 mL/kg b.w.) i.p and silymarin intragastric. Group V and VI rats were treated with 30% CCl4 and SCEE (150 and 300 mg/kg b.w., respectively) intragastric. Group VII animals were treated with SCEE (300 mg/kg b.w.) intragastrically. Blood parameters, Serum proteins and urine profile were investigated. Activities of tissue enzyme i.e. catalase, peroxidase, superoxide dismutase, glutathione-S-transferase, glutathione reductase, GSH and γ-GT were evaluated. Histopathological observations, total protein contents, lipid peroxidation, DNA damage and relative weight were also analyzed. Gallic acid, catechin and caffeic acid were identified in SCEE fraction by HPLC-DAD. Decrease in the count of red blood cells, neutrophils, eosinophils and concentration of hemoglobin whereas increase in lymphocyte count and estimation of sedimentation rate (ESR) with 1 mL CCl4 (30% in Olive oil) administration (30 doses in 60 days) was restored dose dependently with co-treatment of SCEE (150 and 300 mg/kg b.w.). Treatment of rats with CCl4 markedly (P < 0.01) increased the count of urinary red blood cells and leucocytes, concentration of urea, creatinine and urobilinogen and specific gravity whereas creatinine clearance was reduced. Serum level of total protein, albumin, globulin, nitrite, creatinine and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) was significantly increased (P < 0.01) by CCl4 treatment. The activity of antioxidant enzymes; catalase, superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, glutathione-S-transferase and glutathione reductase and content of reduced glutathione was decreased (P < 0.01) significantly. However, increased concentration (P < 0.01) of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and histopathological injuries were noticed in the renal tissues of rats after the treatment with CCl4. Co-administration of SCEE, dose dependently, protected the alterations in the studied parameters of rats at 150 and 300 mg/kg b.w. The present study revealed that SCEE could be used as a possible remedy for renal toxicity abnormalities. These results are an evidence of the renal protective role of S.cordat ethyl acetate fraction against CCl4 induced nephrotoxicity in rats which may be due to its antioxidant compounds.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 18 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 21 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 August 2017.
All research outputs
#20,441,465
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,988
of 3,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,934
of 317,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#106
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.