Table 1
Chemical composition of ESE as identified by the GC-MS
| S/N | RT (min) | % | MW (g) | MF | Chemical name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30.60 | 40.63 | 176 | C6H5ClO2S | Benzenesulfonyl chloride |
| 2 | 33.00 | 21.25 | 254 | C15H10O4 | Benzopyran-4-one, 5,7-dihydroxy-2-phenyl- |
| 3 | 21.80 | 15.63 | 172 | C7H8O3S | Benzenesulfonic acid, methyl ester |
| 4 | 28.80 | 12.50 | 190 | C11H10O3 | 2(5H)-Furanone, 4-methoxy-5-phenyl- |
| 5 | 34.50 | 4.38 | 113 | C5H7NS | 4,5-Dimethylthiazole |
| 6 | 32.00 | 5.63 | 210 | C6H4Cl2O2S | p-Chlorobenzenesulfonyl chloride |
[i] RT = retention time, % = percentage composition, MW = molecular weight, MF = molecular formula
Figure 1
GC-MS chromatogram of ESE.1 = benzenesulfonyl chloride, 2 = benzopyran-4-one, 5,7-dihydroxy-2-phenyl-, 3 = benzenesulfonic acid, methyl ester, 4 = 2(5H)-furanone, 4-methoxy-5-phenyl-, 5 = 4,5-dimethylthiazole, 6 = p-chlorobenzenesulfonyl chloride.
Table 2
Effects of ESE against indomethacin-induced gastric ulcer
| Group | Ulcer score | Ulcer severity | Ulcer index | % inhibition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled water, 5 ml/kg | 9.80 ± 1.46 | 16.00 ± 0.84 | 12.58 ± 0.07 | - |
| Cimetidine, 100 mg/kg | 5.80 ± 1.11* | 10.80 ± 2.82 | 11.66 ± 0.32* | 7.31 |
| ESE, 25 mg/kg | 4.00 ± 0.82* | 6.50 ± 1.55* | 11.05 ± 0.18* | 12.16 |
| ESE, 50 mg/kg | 8.50 ± 1.20 | 14.25 ± 1.80 | 12.28 ± 0.29 | 2.38 |
| ESE, 100 mg/kg | 8.00 ± 2.31 | 15.67 ± 5.93 | 12.37 ± 0.58 | 1.67 |
[i] *p < 0.05 compared with distilled water treated rats, ESE = Eremomastax speciosa extract
Table 3
Effects of ESE on ethanol-induced ulcer
| Group | Ulcer score | Ulcer severity | Ulcer index | % inhibition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled water, 5 ml/kg | 8.33 ± 1.65 | 17.33 ± 3.94 | 12.57 ± 0.55 | - |
| Misoprostol, 50 μg/kg | 0.50 ± 0.29* | 1.00 ± 0.71* | 5.15 ± 0.07* | 59.03 |
| ESE, 25 mg/kg | 3.75 ± 2.25 | 9.00 ± 5.93 | 6.28 ± 0.63* | 50.04 |
| ESE, 50 mg/kg | 7.67 ± 1.17 | 17.67 ± 3.15 | 8.53 ± 0.40* | 32.14 |
| ESE, 100 mg/kg | 5.00 ± 2.41 | 8.40 ± 3.61 | 7.34 ± 0.49* | 41.61 |
[i] *p < 0.05 compared with distilled water treated rats, ESE = Eremomastax speciosa extract
Table 4
Effect of ESE on total gastric acidity
| Group | Total gastric acidity (mole/L) | % reduction |
|---|---|---|
| Distilled water, 5 ml/kg | 0.08 ± 0.00 | - |
| Cimetidine, 100 mg/kg | 0.03 ± 0.01* | 62.5 |
| ESE, 25 mg/kg | 0.06 ± 0.00 | 25 |
| ESE, 50 mg/kg | 0.04 ± 0.01* | 50 |
| ESE, 100 mg/kg | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 12.5 |
[i] *p < 0.05 when compared with distilled water treated group, ESE = Eremomastax speciosa extract
Figure 2
Stomach sections of effects of ESE against indomethacin-induced gastric ulcer. Arrows indicate points of gastric ulceration. Plates A- E represents various treatments; groups A = distilled water 5.0 ml/kg, B = cimetidine 100 mg/kg, C = ESE 25 mg/kg, D = ESE 50 mg/kg, E = ESE 100 mg/kg (x 100 magnification).
Figure 3
The relaxant effects of ESE on isolated rabbit jejunum ex vivo ESE = Eremomastax speciosa extract, final bath concentration of ESE ranged between 57 – 456 μg/mL.
Figure 4
Concentration-dependent effects of histamine and acetylcholine on the intrinsic contraction in isolated rabbit jejunum ex vivo HIS = histamine, ACH = acetylcholine, the final bath concentration of histamine was between 0.15 – 0.44 μg/mL while the final bath concentration of acetylcholine was between 0.015 – 0.044 μg/ml.
Figure 5
The inhibitory effects of ESE on acetylcholine-induced increased intrinsic contraction of isolated rabbit jejunum ex vivo ACH = acetylcholine, ESE = Eremomastax speciosa extract, the final bath concentration of acetylcholine was 0.029 μg/mL while the final bath concentration of ESE ranged between 114 – 456 μg/mL.
Figure 6
The inhibitory effects of ESE on histamine-induced increased intrinsic contraction of isolated rabbit jejunum ex vivo HIS = histamine, ESE = Eremomastax speciosa extract, the final bath concentration of histamine was 0.29 μg/mL while the final bath concentration of ESE ranged between 114 – 456 μg/mL.