{"id":53376,"date":"2023-12-31T11:26:21","date_gmt":"2023-12-31T11:26:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=53376"},"modified":"2024-01-05T06:18:56","modified_gmt":"2024-01-05T06:18:56","slug":"preclinical-evaluation-of-nerolidols-hepatoprotective-and-nephroprotective-potential","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol16no4\/preclinical-evaluation-of-nerolidols-hepatoprotective-and-nephroprotective-potential\/","title":{"rendered":"Preclinical Evaluation of Nerolidol\u2019s Hepatoprotective and Nephroprotective Potential"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chronic diseases currently account for a greater portion of global mortality and morbidity than infectious diseases as the global disease profile is changing. In the 20th century, infectious diseases were the leading cause of death and disability. On the other hand, non-communicable, non-infectious chronic illnesses including hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity have emerged as the primary causes of mortality and morbidity in this century.1<\/sup> The number of drugs available to trigger liver regeneration is limited due to the rapid advancements in modern nutrition and medicine. One option for treating hepatorenal toxicity brought on by drugs or pollutants is the availability of safe pharmacological treatments. Consumption of alloxan is connected to the generation of ROS (i.e., elevated malondialdehyde levels and decreased glutathione levels) 2<\/sup>. Neutralizing reactive oxygen species may therefore be a promising therapeutic approach for diabetic kidney damage. More tests to check the levels of GSH and GSSH (oxidized glutathione) are required to infer an oxidative stress condition brought on by alloxan 3<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oxidative stress can harm the kidneys in several ways. Lipid peroxidation contributes to inflammation and endothelial damage. Many different health and nutritional advantages for humans have been discovered in long-used herbs and fruits.4<\/sup>. Recent studies have found that these natural wonders contain unique phytochemicals that provide them with therapeutic and nutritional qualities. A rising number of studies have shown that essential oils made from medicinal plants have a variety of biological effects.5<\/sup>. Plant-based antioxidants are being studied for use in the treatment of several diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and neurological problems. NRL is present in Canarium schweinfurthi, Ferula fukanensis, Baccharis dracunculifolia, and Amaranthus retroflexus, among other plant species. NRL also referred to as ‘3,7,11-trimethyl- 1,6,10-dodecatrien-3-ol,’ is an antioxidant aliphatic xylene alcohol produced by a variety of plant species. It has been proven that NRL has anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and radical-scavenging capabilities. 6,8<\/sup>. Owing to the fact that sesquiterpene chemical constituents are well known for their antioxidant capabilities, antioxidant activity from nerolidol should be expected 7<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Materials and Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chemicals<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alloxan, Nerolidol, Ascorbic acid, Sodium nitroprusside, Dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO), n-Butanol, DPPH reagent, and Griess reagent are some examples of related chemicals. Both ascorbic acid and nerolidol, an investigational drug, were purchased from Modern Industries and Sigma Aldrich, Co., respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experimental Design<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wistar albino rats of both sexes (6-8 weeks), had been split up into\n6 groups having 6 rats each. The experimental plan was given the go-ahead from the Institution Animal\nEthics Committee (IAEC) of the MET\u2019s\nBKC Institute of Pharmacy,\nNashik. [Approval no. MET-IOP-IAEC\/2021- 22\/01]\n\n\n\n

Group no. I: Control, Rats administered with DW\np.o. for 14\ndays straight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Group no. II: Negative control,\nRats administered with Alloxan (120 mg\/kg i.p.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Group no. III: Standard\ngroup, Rats administered with Alloxan (120 mg\/kg i.p.)\non Day 1 and after 72 hrs treated with Vitamin C (250mg\/kg\np.o.) for 14 days straight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Group no. IV: Test Group I, Rats administered with Alloxan (120 mg\/kg i.p.) on Day 1 and after 72 hrs treated with Nerolidol (100 mg\/kg p.o.) for 14 days straight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Group no. V: Test Group B, Rats administered with Alloxan (120 mg\/kg i.p.) on Day 1 and after 72 hrs treated with Nerolidol (200 mg\/kg p.o.)\nfor 14 days straight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Group no. VI: Test Group C, Rats administered with Alloxan (120 mg\/kg i.p.) on Day 1 and after 72 hrs treated with Nerolidol (300 mg\/kg p.o.)\nfor 14 days straight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thirty-six Wistar albino rats had been randomly split\ninto six groups; Group no. one as control, Group no. two as Negative control\nadministered with Alloxan\n(120 mg\/kg i.p.)\ninjections, Group no. three\nas diabetic group administered with Ascorbic acid (250 mg\/kg p.o.) for 14 days\nstraight, and Group no. four, five, and six as diabetics treated with Nerolidol\n(100 mg\/kg, 200 mg\/kg, 300 mg\/kg p.o.) for 14 consecutive days. After the final treatment, 14 days later,\nanimals were sacrificed. Retro orbital sinus puncture\nwas used to draw blood, and serum was extracted by the process of centrifugation\nfor ten minutes at 3000 rpm at four degree Celsius to measure various biochemical\ncharacteristics. Under the influence of ether anesthesia, the rats were\neuthanized, and the kidney and liver were removed, cleaned in saline solution,\nweighed, and fixed in 10% formalin solution for histological analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In -Vitro <\/em>Antioxidant Status Determination<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

DPPH (2,2-diphenylpicrylhydrazyl) Scavenging activity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The DPPH radical scavenging activity\nwas measured using the procedure given by [9]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reaction setup<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blank: Distilled Water<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Control: Distilled Water + DPPH (Purple colored) Standard: Ascorbic acid + DPPH<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sample: Nerolidol + DPPH<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2 ml of sample solutions of Nerolidol (using methanol as a solvent)\nat various concentrations (20\u00b5g\/ml, 40 \u00b5g\/ml, 60 \u00b5g\/ml, 80 \u00b5g\/ml, 100 \u00b5g\/ml)\nwere taken and 0.5mM of DPPH solution was included. After shaking vigorously, the solution was let to stand\nfor thirty minutes in a darkened\nenvironment at ambient temperature. Subsequently, the absorption maxima of all the samples\nwere measured using a\nUV- Visible spectrometer at 517nm. The antioxidant status of the sample was checked in comparison with a known standard Ascorbic acid solution. All samples were analyzed\nthree times. The following formula\nwas used to determine how many DPPH radicals were scavenged:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

% Radicals scavenged = (Control OD \u2013Sample OD \/ Control\nOD) X 100<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Nitric Oxide Radical Scavenging Activity Assay<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The strategy is focused on the discovery that sodium nitroprusside (SNP) creates nitric oxide spontaneously in an aqueous environment at physiological pH. The Griess reagent can be used to quantify the number of nitrite ions generated by the subsequent reaction of nitric oxide with oxygen. Competition between nitric oxide scavengers and oxygen reduces the production of nitrite ions 9<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reaction setup<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blank: Distilled Water + 10mM SNP + PBS (pH\n7.4)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Control: Distilled Water\n+ 10mM SNP + PBS (pH 7.4) + Griess\nreagent<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Standard: 10mM SNP + PBS (pH 7.4) + Ascorbic\nacid + Griess reagent <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sample: 10mM SNP + PBS (pH 7.4) + Nerolidol + Griess\nreagent<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the investigation, 100 \u00b5l of a\nsample solution of various extracts was combined with SNP (10 mM) in\nphosphate-buffered saline (0.2 M, pH 7.4) and left at ambient temperature for\nabout 150 minutes. The control was\nthe same mixture but without containing the sample. 0.5 ml of Griess reagent\n(1% sulfanilamide, 2% H3PO4, and 0.1% N-(1- naphthyl) ethylenediamine\ndihydrochloride) was added following the\nincubation period. At 546 nm, the chromophore’s absorbance was measured. The\nstandard antioxidant ascorbic acid and nerolidol’s inhibition of nitrite\nproduction were measured in comparison to that of the control group. The\nstandard antioxidant and nerolidol concentrations were changed, and the percent\nof inhibition was linearized against them. Nerolidol’s\ninhibitory concentration (IC50), which lowers 50% of nitric oxide generation,\nwas established. % Inhibition of NO radical\n= Control OD \u2013 Sample\nOD \/ Control OD) \u00d7 100
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biochemical Parameter Estimation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using Prism diagnostics, Thane, India, reagent kits which are commercially available for measuring cholesterol, bilirubin, creatinine, and urea concentrations as well as ALT, AST, and ALP levels were assessed. With the help of a commercial glucometer developed by Accu-chek, fasting blood glucose was measured.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assay for Antioxidant Activity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Separately chopped into small pieces, the kidney, and liver were then made into 10% homogenates using an ice-cold 0.05 M potassium phosphate buffer having pH of 7.4. At 4 \u00b0C, 15 minutes at 6000 rpm were spent centrifuging the homogenates.  Lipid Peroxidation (LPO), reduced glutathione (GSH), and catalase (CAT) estimation assays used the supernatant. The method given by Mohebbati R, 2016 10<\/sup> was used to measure lipid peroxidation (LPO) level and expressed as n moles of MDA formed\/gm protein. Using the technique outlined by Saima Ali et al 2022 was used to measure reduced glutathione (GSH) and the catalase (CAT) level was determined using Mondal, 2017 11<\/sup>; Yavar Mahmoodzadeh, 2017 12<\/sup> methodology and given as U\/mg protein.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Histopathological Examination<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A part of the kidney and liver from each experimental group was preserved in a 10% solution of formaldehyde which was dehydrated in varying degrees of alcohol, washed with the help of xylene, and later stored in paraffin. After being divided into miniature portions (5 \u00b5m thick), each kidney and liver sample was stained with the hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) pigment. In the sections, the pathological signs were looked into.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statistical Evaluation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Graph pad InStat was employed to analyze the data. The figures display means and their standard deviations. To determine whether there were any differences in the means, variance analysis in one way (one-way ANOVA) was utilized, followed by Dunnett’s test. P values < 0.05 and 0.01 were used to determine whether statistics were significant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evaluation of the potential for in vitro antioxidants<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2,2-diphenylpicrylhydrazyl (DPPH) Radical Scavenging Activity <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To evaluate the test materials’ ability to scavenge free radicals and act as antioxidants, the deviation in the optical density of DPPH radicals is evaluated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1: % DPPH radical scavenging activity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Concentration of solution <\/strong>(\u00b5g\/ml)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

DPPH radical scavenging activity (%) (Mean \u00b1 SD)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n<\/td>\n\n

Ascorbic acid<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

96.97\u00b11.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39.93\u00b12.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

200<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

97.03\u00b11.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

43.41\u00b11.83<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

300<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

97.18\u00b12.01<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45.99\u00b11.35<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

400<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

97.32\u00b11.80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

48.59\u00b11.01<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 1: Antioxidant activity of Nerolidol on DPPH<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Due to nerolidol’s scavenging ability, which was discovered to be concentration-dependent, Table 1 and Figure 1 show a significant spike in DPPH radical concentration inhibition. Ascorbic acid showed a stronger scavenging effect (97.32\u00b11.803 %) than Nerolidol (48.59 \u00b11.016 %). By reducing the concentration of DPPH, the results demonstrated that the ability of ascorbic acid to scavenge free radicals from DPPH was greater than that of Nerolidol.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nitric Oxide Radical Scavenging Activity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 15 depicts Nerolidol’s and standard ascorbic acid\u2019s impact on nitric oxide scavenging. Standard ascorbic acid inhibited nitric oxide production by 88.95\u00b1 1.60% at 400 \u00b5g\/ml, while Nerolidol inhibited it by 43.56\u00b1 1.52% at 400 \u00b5g\/ml.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 2: Nitric oxide radical scavenging activity<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Concentration (<\/strong>\u00b5g\/ml<\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nitric oxide scavenging activity (%) (Mean \u00b1 SD)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ascorbiv acid<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

100<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

64.71\u00b13.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24.03\u00b10.94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

200<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

70.88\u00b11.20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26.84\u00b11.14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

300<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

88.63\u00b11.94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

35.71\u00b11.26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

400<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

88.95\u00b11.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

43.56\u00b11.52<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 2: Antioxidant activity of Nerolidol on Nitric oxide scavenging activity<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Nerolidol has been found to be a powerful inhibitor of nitrite production. This could be due to antioxidant principles found in Nerolidol’s essential oil components, which compete with oxygen for the ability to react with NO radical, preventing the formation of nitrite ions. In both in vitro experiments, the results of the current study demonstrate dose-dependent antioxidant activity, and the effect seen might be attributed to the free radicals being squelched by contributing hydrogen ions or electrons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Appraisal of Hepatoprotective and Nephroprotective Potential of Nerolidol<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weight of Body, Liver, and Kidney<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The body, liver, and kidney weight changes were recorded in normal and experimental rats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 3: The weight of the body, liver, and kidney changes in normal and laboratory rats.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Groups<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>Body Weight (g)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Change  i<\/strong>n Body Weight (g)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Isolated<\/strong> liver weight (g)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Isolated<\/strong> kidney <\/strong>weight (g)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Initial reading<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Final reading<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

 <\/strong>Normal Control<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

167.5 \u00b1<\/p>\n

6.89<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

212.66 \u00b1<\/p>\n

21.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>45.16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.5 \u00b1 0.61<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>1.07 \u00b1 0.14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Negative Control (Alloxan)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

162 \u00b1<\/p>\n

42.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

141.16 \u00b1<\/p>\n

17.94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>20.84<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>7.71 \u00b1 0.56<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.988 \u00b1 0.13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Standard <\/strong>(Vit. C)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

175.88 \u00b1<\/p>\n

24.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

204 \u00b1<\/p>\n

37.31**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28.12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.29 \u00b1 0.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>1.098 \u00b1 0.13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Nerolidol-I <\/strong>(100 mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

173.8 \u00b1<\/p>\n

37.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

206.4 \u00b1<\/p>\n

20.14**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>7.88 \u00b1 0.38 **<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>0.983 \u00b1 0.13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Nerolidol-II <\/strong>(200 mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

120.8 \u00b1<\/p>\n

25.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

134 \u00b1<\/p>\n

28.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>13.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>7.98 \u00b1 0.57 **<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>1.021 \u00b1 0.071<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Nerolidol-<\/strong><\/p>\n

III<\/strong>  (300 <\/strong>mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

156.6\u00b1<\/p>\n

11.25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

162.25 \u00b1<\/p>\n

45.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

 <\/strong>5.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.09 \u00b1 0.37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.045 \u00b1 0.13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Each number represents the mean \u00b1 SD for 6 rats with a p-value of (**p< 0.01, *p< 0.05), which is notable when compared with the Negative control (Alloxan-treated group).<\/p>\n\n\n

Biochemical Parameters<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Liver Functional Assessments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After necrosis, essential cellular enzymes of hepatocytes such as ALT, AST, ALP, Lactate dehydrogenase, and Cholesterol, Triglycerides are released into the bloodstream, so the cornerstone of hepatic damage, which shows an increase in the number of marker enzymes such as ALT, AST present in the blood is caused by inflammation and necrotic changes in the liver. In comparison to the normal control group, Alloxan administration resulted in a substantial rise (*p<0.05, **p<0.01) in the quantity of ALT, AST, ALP, Total Bilirubin, and Triglycerides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 4: Effect of administration of Nerolidolon basic liver assessments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Parameters<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Normal Control<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Negative Control<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Standard<\/strong><\/p>\n

(Ascorbic acid)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol-I <\/strong><\/p>\n

(100 mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol-II<\/strong><\/p>\n

(200 mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol-III<\/strong><\/p>\n

(300 mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SGOT\/AST<\/strong><\/p>\n

(U\/L)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

67.37 \u00b1 8.88<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

109.9 \u00b1 12.83<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

68.8 \u00b1 18.06**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

76.1 \u00b1 7.18**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

69.66 \u00b1 11.3**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

66.3 \u00b1 21.9**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SGPT\/ALT<\/strong><\/p>\n

(U\/L)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

78.3 \u00b1 9.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

92.7 \u00b1 4.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

84.3 \u00b1 3.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

83.06 \u00b1 5.03*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

81.32 \u00b1 6.35**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

80.24 \u00b1 3.3**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

ALP<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

468.5 \u00b1 67.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

779 \u00b1 170<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

518.6 \u00b1 174.7**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

680.1 \u00b1 48.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

557.83 \u00b1 49.3**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

299.4 \u00b1 81.6**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

LDH<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1174.76 \u00b1 544.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1786.3 \u00b1 439.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1319.5 \u00b1 124.2*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1333.5 \u00b1 145.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1308 \u00b1 95.1**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1261 \u00b1 132.97**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Cholesterol<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

78.34 \u00b1 14.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

115.2 \u00b1 9.26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

95.98 \u00b1 10.6**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

105.82 \u00b1 7.07<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

91.05 \u00b1 5.2**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

89.81 \u00b1 4.09**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Triglycerides<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

115.7 \u00b1 34.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

194.3 \u00b1 39.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

135.3 \u00b1 26.9**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

120.09 \u00b1 10.9**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

117.5 \u00b1 11.46**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

106.54 \u00b1 22.5**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Results values are the mean and standard deviation for a batch of six readings, asterisks signify statistically significant differences (*p<0.05, **p<0.01)<\/p>\n\n\n

Group no. I: Normal control; Group no. II Alloxan (120mg\/kg i.p); Group no. III: Vitamin C (250 mg\/kg p.o.); Group no. IV: Nerolidol (100 mg\/kg p.o.); Group no. V: Nerolidol (200 mg\/kg p.o.); Group no.VI: Nerolidol (300 mg\/kg p.o.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 3: Effects of Nerolidol on serum AST, ALT, ALP, LDH, Cholesterol, and Triglycerides levels.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Results values are the mean and standard deviation for a batch of six readings, asterisks signify differences that are statistically significant (*p\u02c20.05, **p\u02c20.01)<\/p>\n\n\n

Group no. I: Normal control; Group no. II: Alloxan (120 mg\/kg i.p); Group no. III: Vitamin C (250mg\/kg\/p.o.); Group no. IV: Nerolidol (100mg \/kg p.o.); Group no. V: Nerolidol (200mg\/kg by p.o.); Group no. VI: Nerolidol (300mg\/kg).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kidney Functional Assessments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comparatively to the normal control group, Alloxan administration led to a notable rise (p 0.01) in Creatinine, Urea, Triglycerides, Cholesterol, and a decrease in total protein levels. At the treatment doses of Nerolidol (100, 200, and 300mg\/kg\/d), there was a dose-dependent and considerable (p 0.001) decrease in renal biomarkers. ANOVA was used to analyze the data, followed by Dunnett’s test. These results suggested that nerolidol considerably decreased kidney toxicity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 5: Effect of administration of Nerolidol on basic kidney assessments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Parameters<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Normal Control<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Negative Control<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Standard<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol- <\/strong>I (100<\/strong><\/p>\n

mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol- <\/strong>II<\/strong><\/p>\n

(200<\/strong><\/p>\n

mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol- <\/strong>III<\/strong><\/p>\n

(300<\/strong><\/p>\n

mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Urea<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

37.7 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

51.34 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

43.58 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40.9 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

39.09 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

33.91 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n<\/td>\n\n

3.37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.69*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.1**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.75**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.66**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.68 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.15 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.58 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.92 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.34 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.707 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Protein<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.88<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.401<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.68*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.79**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.65**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Creatinine<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.55 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.35 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.768 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.521 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.4815 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.438 \u00b1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n<\/td>\n\n

0.037<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.804<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.355*<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.039**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.071**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.069**<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Results values are the mean and standard deviation for a batch of six readings, asterisks signify statistically significant differences (*p\u02c20.05, **p\u02c20.01)<\/p>\n\n\n

Group no. I: Normal control; Group no. II: Alloxan (120 mg\/kg i.p); Group no. III: Vitamin C (250mg\/kg\/p.o.); Group no. IV: Nerolidol (100mg \/kg p.o.); Group no. V: Nerolidol (200mg\/kg by p.o.); Group no. VI: Nerolidol (300mg\/kg).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 4: Effects of Nerolidol on serum Urea, Total protein, and Creatinine<\/strong><\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Oxidative Stress Markers and Non-Enzymatic Oxidants<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lipid Peroxidation (LPO)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In lipid peroxidation, oxygen-derived free radicals (hydroxyl and hydroperoxyl) cause oxidative damage to cell membrane lipids (mostly phospholipids) (Catal\u00e1 and Daz, 2016). As The LPO value was determined to be 3.990.17 in the liver and 3.34 0.21 in the kidney in the control group. (Tables 4.29 and 4.30). Using a dose of 300 mg\/kg, Nerolidol considerably lowered LPO levels in liver and kidney tissue (4.14\u00b10.04 and 4.64\u00b10.42) respectively, up to a dosage of 200 mg\/kg, Nerolidol noticeably lowered LPO levels in liver and kidney (4.22\u00b10.02 and 4.32\u00b10.15) respectively. The levels of LPO in the liver (4.44\u00b1 0.24) and kidney (5.02\u00b10.62) improved slightly after treatment with 100 mg\/kg Nerolidol when compared to the group treated with Alloxan (13.35\u00b11.28 and 12.93\u00b11.80, liver and kidney respectively).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 6: Effect of administration of Nerolidol on the antioxidant status in the liver<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Parameters<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Normal<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Negative control<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Standard (Ascorbic acid)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol-I <\/strong>(100 mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol-II <\/strong>(200 mg\/kg<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol-<\/strong>III<\/strong> (300
<\/strong>mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Lipid <\/strong>peroxidation (MDA) <\/strong>(n <\/strong>moles\/gm <\/strong>tissue)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.99\u00b10.17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.35\u00b11.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.47\u00b10.29**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.44\u00b10.24**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.22\u00b10.04**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.14\u00b10.04**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Reduced glutathione (U\/mg<\/strong><\/p>\n

protein)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.08\u00b10.16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.83\u00b10.60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.96\u00b10.68**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.21\u00b10.06**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.35\u00b10.04**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.70\u00b10.20**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Catalase (U\/mg protein)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32.72\u00b12.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.78\u00b12.38<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

33.45\u00b14.04**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25.79\u00b14.43**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30.89\u00b11.84**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

31.43\u00b14.99**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Values are given as Mean \u00b1 S.D. (n=6) (*p<0.05, **p<0.01), which is noticeably different from the negative control group.<\/p>\n\n\n

Table 7: Effect of administration of Nerolidol on antioxidant status in the kidney<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Parameters<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Normal<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Negative control<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Standard (Ascorbic acid)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol-I <\/strong>(100 mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol-II <\/strong>(200 mg\/kg<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Nerolidol-<\/strong>III<\/strong>  (300
<\/strong>mg\/kg)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Lipid <\/strong>peroxidation (MDA)<\/strong> (n <\/strong>moles\/gm
<\/strong>tissue)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.34\u00b10.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12.93\u00b11.80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.65\u00b10.30**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.02\u00b10.62**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.32\u00b10.15**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.64\u00b10.42**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Reduced glutathione (U\/mg <\/strong>protein)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12.26\u00b10.25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.16\u00b10.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14.52\u00b10.56**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.04\u00b10.47**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12.57\u00b10.34**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.01\u00b10.16**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Catalase (U\/mg protein)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

31.30\u00b13.29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14.36\u00b11.15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32.83\u00b14.11**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27.03\u00b14.77**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29.41\u00b14.74**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

31.22\u00b12.89**<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Values are given as Mean \u00b1 S.D. (n=6) (*p\u02c20.05 **p<0.01), noticeably different from the negative control group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 5: Levels of LPO (n moles\/mg protein) in the liver and kidney tissue of various groups.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Values are given as Mean \u00b1 S.D. (n=6) (*p\u02c20.05\n**p<0.01), noticeably different from the negative control\ngroup.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(ONE-WAY ANOVA\nfollowed by Dunnett\u2019s\ntest).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Group no. I: Normal control; Group no. II: Alloxan (120 mg\/kg i.p); Group no. III: Vitamin C (250mg\/kg\/p.o.); Group no. IV: Nerolidol (100mg \/kg p.o.); Group no. V: Nerolidol (200mg\/kg by p.o.); Group no. VI: Nerolidol (300mg\/kg).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reduced Glutathione (GSH)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

GSH is a non-enzymatic antioxidant that removes hydrogen\nperoxide from the cell. It can function as a free radical scavenger by\ncontinually oxidizing and reducing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Alloxan was administered to rats, the levels of\nreduced glutathione in the toxicant group reduced significantly (*p\u02c20.05, **p \u02c2\n0.01), as opposed to that of the control group. In the control group, the\nliver’s GSH value was identified to be 3.080.16 and the kidney’s to be\n12.260.25. (Tables 4.29 and 4.30).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a dose of 300\nmg\/kg, Nerolidol had considerably higher GSH\nlevels in liver and kidney tissue (3.70\u00b10.20**<\/sup> and 13.01\u00b10.16**<\/sup>) respectively, whereas, at a dosage of 200 mg\/kg,\nNerolidol noticeably raised GSH levels\nin liver and kidney (3.35\u00b10.04**<\/sup> and 12.57\u00b10.34**<\/sup>)\nrespectively. The levels of GSH in the liver (3.21\u00b10.06**<\/sup>) and kidney (13.04\u00b10.47**<\/sup>) improved\nslightly after treatment with 100 mg\/kg Nerolidol\nas opposed to that of the group treated with Alloxan (2.83\u00b10.60 and 9.16\u00b10.76,\nliver and kidney respectively).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 6: Levels of GSH (U\/mg protein) in the tissues of the liver and kidney of different groups<\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Catalase activity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Catalases are found in the cell’s peroxisomes and\nmitochondria. a membrane-bound and soluble form A considerable number of peroxisomes are present within\nthese hepatic cells,\nKupffer cells are responsible\nfor a high level of catalase activity. As Alloxan was administered to rats, the\nlevels of reduced catalase in the toxicant group decreased noticeably (*p\u02c20.05, **p \u02c2 0.01), in contrast to that\nof the control group. In the control group, the catalase value was identified to be 32.72\u00b12.78 in the liver\nand 31.30\u00b13.29 in the kidney\n(Tables 4.29 and 4.30). At a dosage\nof 300 mg\/kg, Nerolidol considerably higher catalase levels in liver and kidney\ntissue (31.43\u00b14.99**<\/sup> and 31.22\u00b12.89**<\/sup>) respectively, whereas at a dosage of 200 mg\/kg,\nNerolidol noticeably raised catalase levels in liver and kidney\n(30.89\u00b11.84**<\/sup> and 29.41\u00b14.74**<\/sup>) respectively. The levels of catalase in the liver\n(25.79\u00b14.43**<\/sup>) and kidney (27.03\u00b14.77**<\/sup>) improved\nslightly after treatment with 100 mg\/kg Nerolidol when compared to the group treated\nwith Alloxan (13.78\u00b12.38 and 14.36\u00b11.15, liver and kidney respectively).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 7: Levels of CAT (u\/mg protein) in the tissue of the liver and kidney of different groups.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Effects of Salicin on the Liver and Kidney Histopathology<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Histopathology of Liver<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 8: Haematoxylin and Eosin-stained photomicrographs of rat liver sections.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Histopathological analysis\nof liver sections\n(H&E); Magnification X400<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Animals in the group I normal control group displayed regular hepatocytes with normal cellular architecture and appropriate central vein structure, as well as no signs of degeneration or other histological abnormalities. the liver fragments from the diseased control group. In the alloxan-toxic rat, there was a loss of structural integrity as well as substantial damage to the central vein, hepatocytes, and neutrophil infiltration. Indicated with an arrow in the figure. However, Group III (standard) and Group VI show modest infiltration of inflammatory cells there is an absence of vacuoles and hepatocyte degeneration, and normal architecture is evident. Group IV and Group V exhibit moderate damage with mild infiltration and vacuolation. Nerolidol restored detrimental liver changes in a dose-dependent manner, much like conventional Vitamin C.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Histopathology of Kidney<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 9: Haematoxylin and Eosin-stained photomicrographs of rat kidney sections.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Kidney tissue sections underwent histopathological examination (H&E); 400x magnification. Group I (Normal control) showed normal histological architecture and absence of histological alteration; Group II (negative control; nephrotoxic effect of Alloxan showing marked degeneration in the lining of epithelium of all the tubules & also showing infiltration of inflammatory cells in between tubules; Indicated in the figure by an arrow. However, Group III (Standard) and Group VI (Nerolidol-III) showed mild infiltration and the absence of severe degeneration of nephrocytes or tubules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hepatorenal insufficiency, a non-communicable condition, is the primary cause of mortality and morbidity on a global scale. As a result, researchers are very interested in herbal medicines that have hepatoprotective and nephroprotective properties. In recent years, scientists have employed medicinal herbs in animal studies to investigate their hepatoprotective properties. In order to determine the hepatoprotective and nephroprotective effects of Nerolidol on liver and kidney damage, we evaluated blood levels of AST and ALT activity, ALP, and LDH, which are enzyme indicators of hepatocellular injury, as well as urea, creatinine, and total protein levels. It is well known that prolonged exposure to Alloxan causes liver damage, which raises blood levels of functioning liver enzymes such as gamma-glutamyl transferase, aspartate transaminase, alanine transaminases, and alkaline phosphatases considerably (*p0.05, **p0.01). As a result, the most important method to identify liver dysfunction is testing these enzymes in the blood. In the current study, rats treated with Alloxan had greater blood levels of liver function enzymes than rats treated with a vehicle, suggesting that the hepatic cell membrane is altered as seen by the loss of enzymes from the cell across the membrane. Therefore, this research demonstrated that Alloxan damages liver cells, which allows functional characteristics to escape into extracellular fluids. In contrast, rats given Alloxan also had lower levels of these liver functioning enzymes, cholesterol, and triglycerides after receiving nerolidol therapy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, a rise in serum urea and a decline in\nurine urea levels are linked to a rise in protein catabolism. It is well known\nthat Alloxan prevents amino acids from being incorporated into proteins,\nraising serum urea levels. A multitude of factors, including dietary protein,\ncatabolic state, and muscle mass, affect creatinine levels. The considerably (p\n0.05) increased serum and decreased urine levels of creatinine are signs of\ndecreased glomerular filtration brought on by the administration of Alloxan.\nAlloxan induces progressive tubular damage because its administration is\nparticularly sensitive to the proximal tubules’ considerable reabsorptive\nactivity, which leads to abnormalities. However, nerolidol medication stops\nrenal deterioration and brings back-to-normal levels of serum urea, total\nprotein, and creatinine. The effects listed above demonstrate Nerolidol’s\nnephroprotective properties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alloxan inhibits the activity of superoxide dismutase,\npossibly as a result of its reactive metabolites binding to the enzyme’s active\nsite. The lower catalase activity in Alloxan-treated mice may be attributed to\nthe increased generation of superoxide free radicals and the decreased\naccumulation of iron, an enzyme cofactor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The significant (**p0.01, *p 0.05) decline in\nglutathione peroxidase activity in the group of rats receiving Alloxan alone\nmay be due to insufficient elimination of peroxides, which led to outcomes that\ndemonstrated an increase in lipid peroxidation. Reduced amounts of sulfhydryl\ngroups in the rats from the negative control group demonstrate the\nestablishment of the Alloxan-SH complex. As a result, glutathione reductase\nexhibits decreased enzyme activity. Rats given nerolidol did exhibit a notable\n(*p0.05, **p0.01) decrease in lipid peroxidation. Nerolidol, however,\nsignificantly increased the activities of many cellular antioxidants in the\nrats in the negative control group, which may be related to the drug’s capacity\nto scavenge free radicals. Rats given Alloxan experienced hepatocellular\ndegeneration, sinusoidal dilatation, necrosis, inflammatory cell infiltration,\nand congestion, according to a histological examination. We observed focal\nnecrotic areas with damaged hepatocytes and sinusoidal dilatation in rats given\nAlloxan. The use of nerolidol almost eliminated these pathological signs.\nAntioxidant nerolidol may help to preserve enzymes by trapping reactive oxygen\nspecies (ROS) and products of peroxidation. This idea is supported by the\njust-discovered antioxidant and antiradical properties of nerolidol in vitro.\nAn investigational medicine called nerolidol may interact with the ROS that\nAlloxan produces and result in extremely harmful oxidants. Since nerolidol\nsignificantly protects against Alloxan, our findings suggest that it may be a\nuseful source of cellular defense agents in liver tissues. Previous research\nsupports our findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Owing to\nthe paucity of particular clinical signs and biochemical and pathological alterations,\ndrug-induced liver and kidney damage is frequently overlooked. Leading to a\nshortage of availability and several side effects associated with the use of\nsynthetic drugs, such as hyperkalemia, gynecomastia, neurocognitive, fatigue,\nnausea, and others, researchers are working to formulate newer natural-source\ndrugs that can safeguard disrupted function and even promote better kidney and\nliver architecture. Due to a scarcity of knowledge on a low-cost preventive\nmeasure for hepatorenal impairment, this study contends the mitigative impact\nof Nerolidol using biochemical and histological parameters as bases. As a\nconsequence of hepatic xenobiotic metabolism, the administration of Alloxan\nresulted in an excessive quantity of ROS. These reactive forms then triggered\nlipid peroxidation of cellular and subcellular compartment membranal lipids,\naltering their integrity and ultimately affecting functionality. As a\nconsequence of the toxicant group’s exposure to Alloxan, a significant increase\nin lipid peroxidation was seen in hepato-renal tissue. In the toxicant group,\nan imbalance in oxidant-antioxidant levels was identified, and this was thought\nto be a crucial cascade in Alloxan-induced hepato-renal damage. The medication\nAlloxan, when given intraperitoneally, can cause a significant imbalance in the\noxidant-antioxidant ratio. As a result, the level of nonenzymatic antioxidant\nGSH has decreased. Alloxan exposure disrupted not only GSH, but also enzymatic\nantioxidants such as CAT, SOD, and LDH. Furthermore, the negative effects of\nAlloxan on hepato-renal tissues were corroborated by looking at hepatic and\nrenal-specific markers in serum. An increased level of tissue-specific\nindicators in the current study shows tissue deprivation of functional ability,\nwhich could be caused by membrane permeability or damage-mediated leaking of\nthese marker enzymes into the blood. The liver and kidney sections of\nAlloxan-treated rats uncovered considerable hepatic cellular damage and major\ntubular epithelial layer damage, respectively, in histological investigations.\nMoreover, Nerolidol administration restored the cellular histoarchitecture of\nthe hepatic and renal tissues, which was consistent with biochemical analyses\nin the study animals.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nerolidol treatment significantly reduced the severity of the histological alterations, enzymatic antioxidant status, renal and hepatic functional evaluations, and Alloxan-induced mice’s renal and hepatic dysfunction. Alloxan produces ROS in a cyclic redox process with the aid of intracellular thiols, primarily glutathione, and its reduction product, dialuric acid. In the final, iron-catalyzed chemical stage, dialuric acid passes through an autoxidation reaction that produces superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radicals. These hydroxyl radicals eventually lead to the death of beta cells. The strongest bioactive sesquiterpene alcohol, nerolidol, has been shown in prior studies to have antioxidant effects. The study was conducted as a result of the evidence, and it found that Nerolidol’s antioxidant capacity can be linked to its ameliorative effects in Alloxan-induced hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity. This study lays the framework for a more thorough assessment of Nerolidol’s hepato- and nephroprotective effectiveness through molecular analysis and research into the processes involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Acknowledgement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors are sincerely thankful to our respected principal Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar Sir (MET\u2019s BKC Institute of Pharmacy, Nashik) for his keen support and belief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conflict of Interest <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors declare no conflict of interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funding Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no funding in this article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Dagnaw, W. W. Assessment of priority non-communicable diseases and injuries (NCDI) interventions and human resourcing at selected health facilities in four regions of Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Medical School), 2021.<\/li>
  2. Shodehinde, S. A., & Oboh, G. Antioxidant properties of aqueous extracts of unripe Musa paradisiaca on sodium nitroprusside induced lipid peroxidation in rat pancreas in vitro. Asian pacific journal of tropical biomedicine, 2013; 3: 449-457.
    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>
  3. Abdel Aziz, M. A., Badary, D. M., & Hussein, M. R. A. Renal damage following alloxan\u2010induced diabetes is associated with generation of reactive oxygen species, alterations of p53, TGF\u2010\u03b21, and extracellular matrix metalloproteinases in rats. Cell Biology International, 2017; 41: 525-533.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  4. Petrovska, B. B. Historical review of medicinal plants\u2019 usage. Pharmacognosy reviews, 2012; 6: 1.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  5. Bakkali, F., Averbeck, S., Averbeck, D., & Idaomar, M. Biological effects of essential oils\u2013a review. Food and chemical toxicology, 2008; 46: 446-475.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  6. Chan, W. K., Tan, L. T. H., Chan, K. G., Lee, L. H., & Goh, B. H. Nerolidol: a sesquiterpene alcohol with multi-faceted pharmacological and biological activities. Molecules, 2016; 21: 529.
    CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  7. Bartikova, H., Hanusova, V., Skalova, L., Ambroz, M., & Bousova, I. Antioxidant, pro-oxidant and other biological activities of sesquiterpenes. Current topics in medicinal chemistry, 2014; 14: 2478-2494.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  8. Nogueira Neto, J. D., de Almeida, A. A. C., da Silva Oliveira, J., Dos Santos, P. S., de Sousa, D. P., & de Freitas, R. M. Antioxidant effects of nerolidol in mice hippocampus after open field test. Neurochemical Research, 2013; 38: 1861-1870.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  9. Alam, M. N., Bristi, N. J., & Rafiquzzaman, M. Review on in vivo and in vitro methods evaluation of antioxidant activity. Saudi pharmaceutical journal, 2013; 21: 143-152.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  10. Mohebbati, R., Shafei, M. N., Soukhtanloo, M., Roshan, N. M., Rad, A. K., Anaeigoudari, A., … & Beheshti, F. Adriamycin-induced oxidative stress is prevented by mixed hydro-alcoholic extract of Nigella sativa and Curcuma longa in rat kidney. Avicenna journal of phytomedicine, 2016; 6: 86.<\/li>
  11. Mondal, S., Ghosh, D., Ganapaty, S., Chekuboyina, S. V. G., & Samal, M. Hepatoprotective activity of Macrothelypteris torresiana (Gaudich.) aerial parts against CCl4-induced hepatotoxicity in rodents and analysis of polyphenolic compounds by HPTLC. Journal of pharmaceutical analysis, 2017; 7: 181-189.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li>
  12. Mahmoodzadeh, Y., Mazani, M., & Rezagholizadeh, L. Hepatoprotective effect of methanolic Tanacetum parthenium extract on CCl4-induced liver damage in rats. Toxicology reports, 2017; 4: 455-462.
     CrossRef <\/a><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Abbreviations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    ROS: Reactive Oxygen Species; GSH: Glutathione; GSSH: Oxidized Glutathione; NRL: Nerolidol; p.o.: Per Oral; i.p.: Intraperitoneal; DMSO: Dimethyl Sulfoxide; DPPH: 2,2-diphenylpicrylhydrazyl; SNP: Sodium Nitroprusside; PBS: Phosphate Buffer Solution; NO: Nitric Oxide; ALT: Alanine transaminase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; ALP: Alkaline phosphatase; LPO: Lipid Peroxidation; CAT: Catalase; MDA: Malonaldehyde; H&E: Haemtoxylin-eosin; SD: Standard Deviation; SGOT: Serum Glutamic-Oxaloacetic Transaminase; SGPT: Serum Glutamate Pyruvate Transaminase; ALP: Alkaline Phosphatase; LDH: Lactate Dehydrogenase; ANOVA: Analysis of Variance<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction Chronic diseases currently account for a greater portion of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[111],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol16no4"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53376"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53376\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55072,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53376\/revisions\/55072"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}