Skip to main content

Table 2 Effects of 80ME and solvent fractions of the leaves of Myrtus communis L on gastrointestinal transit in mice

From: Evaluation of the antidiarrheal activity of the leaf extracts of Myrtus communis Linn (Myrtaceae) in mice model

Dose (mg/kg)

Length of small intestine (cm)

Distance moved by the charcoal meal (cm)

Peristaltic index (%)

% inhibition

Control

56.17 ± 1.42

36.67 ± 1.94

65.09 ± 2.25

-------

80ME 100

58.33 ± 0.80

25.17 ± 2.43a3b2f2

43.26 ± 4.37a3b2f2

33.54

80ME 200

58.67 ± 1.12

20.05 ± 1.09a3

35.07 ± 2.27a3

46.12

80ME 400

58.17 ± 2.01

14.33 ± 1.65a3

24.53 ± 2.53a3

62.31

Loperamide 3

56.33 ± 1.28

14.83 ± 0.91a3

26.29 ± 1.34a3

59.61

Control

57.67 ± 1.76

36.17 ± 4.18

62.33 ± 6.06

------

CF 200

56.33 ± 1.08

25.17 ± 3.46b1

44.88 ± 6.39b1

27.99

CF 300

59.50 ± 1.09

24.00 ± 1.39a1

40.44 ± 2.60a1

35.11

CF 400

60.17 ± 1.89

20.67 ± 2.43a2

34.37 ± 3.91a2

44.86

Loperamide 3

56.83 ± 1.11

14.00 ± 1.41a3

24.58 ± 2.32a3

60.56

Control

58.50 ± 0.67

36.83 ± 3.21

62.81 ± 5.11

-------

MF 200

59.17 ± 1.38

29.17 ± 1.96b2

49.47 ± 3.47b2

21.24

MF 300

59.50 ± 1.41

24.00 ± 3.33a1

40.29 ± 5.48a1

35.85

MF 400

59.00 ± 1.59

19.17 ± 3.27a3

32.95 ± 5.99a3

47.54

Loperamide 3

56.33 ± 1.28

13.67 ± 1.52a3

24.20 ± 2.55a3

61.47

Control

58.50 ± 0.67

36.83 ± 3.21

62.81 ± 5.11

------

AF 200

56.83 ± 0.95

34.00 ± 1.83b3g1j1n1

59.79 ± 2.98b3g1j1n2

4.81

AF 300

56.83 ± 1.92

31.00 ± 2.05b2g1

54.91 ± 4.33b2g1n1

12.58

AF 400

59.17 ± 0.98

29.50 ± 3.09b2

49.79 ± 4.95b2

20.73

AF 800

56.83 ± 1.17

21.83 ± 3.55a2

38.56 ± 6.29a2

38.61

Loperamide 3

56.33 ± 1.28

13.67 ± 1.52a3

24.20 ± 2.55a3

61.47

  1. Values are mean ± SEM (n = 6); analysis was performed using one way ANOVA followed by Tuckey post hoc test; a compared with control values; b compared with loperamide; c compared with 100 mg/kg; d compared with 200 mg/kg; ecompared with 300 mg/kg; f compared with 400 mg/kg; g compared with 800 mg/kg; h compared with CF200; i compared with CF300; j compared with CF400; kcompared with MF200; m compared with MF 300; n compared with MF 400; 1 p < 0.05, 2 p < 0.01, 3 p < 0.001; 80ME = 80% methanol extract, CF = chloroform fraction, MF = methanol fraction, AF = aqueous fraction. Controls received 10 ml/kg- distilled water (for 80ME, MF and AF) and 2% Tween-80 (for CF)