Gastroenterology Research, ISSN 1918-2805 print, 1918-2813 online, Open Access
Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, Gastroenterol Res and Elmer Press Inc
Journal website http://www.gastrores.org

Original Article

Volume 2, Number 6, December 2009, pages 324-332

Role of Rosiglitazone as a Gastroprotective Agent Against Indomethacin-Induced Gastric Mucosal Injury in Rats

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Effect of IND on the development of gastric mucosal lesions and gastric mucosal nitrite level. A, Effect of IND on the development of gastric mucosal lesions. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM of 8 rats. # is significantly different from control group; f significantly different from IND at P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively. B, Effect of IND on gastric mucosal nitrite level. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM of observations from 8 rats (data are in pg/mg wet tissue normalized and expressed as % of control). # is significantly different from control group; ¦ is significantly different from IND at P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively. Symbols as in Table 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Effect of IND on gastric mucosal malondialdehyde (MDA) and gastric mucosal PGE2 levels. A, Effect of IND on gastric mucosal MDA level. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM of observations from 8 rats (data are in pg/mg wet tissue normalized and expressed as % of control). # is significantly different from control group; f is significantly different from IND at P < 0.001 and P < 0.05, respectively. B, Effect of IND on gastric mucosal PGE2 level. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM of observations from 8 rats (data are in pg/mg wet tissue normalized and expressed as % of control). # is significantly different from control group; f is significantly different from IND at P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively. Symbols as in Table 1.
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Effect of IND on the serum TNF-α level. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM of observations from 8 rats (data are in pg/mL normalized and expressed as % of control). # is significantly different from control group; f is significantly different from IND at P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively. Symbols as in Table 1.

Table

Table 1. Effect of IND on Gastric Juice Parameters and Their Alteration by Rosiglitazone
 
GroupsVolume (ml/3h)FAO (mEq/3h)TAO (mEq/3h)Pepsin activity (mg/ml)Mucin Content (mg% hexose)
Data represent the mean ± SEM of observations from 8 rats. * P < 0.05 significantly different of IND-treated group versus control and IND + Rosi groups; ** P < 0.01 significantly different of IND + Rosi versus IND. IND: indomethacin; Rosi: rosiglitazone; Total acid outputs; TAO; Free acid outputs, FAO.
Control2.33 ± 0.2346.75 ± 2.8281.61 ± 3.283.14 ± 0.2379.7 ± 4.05
IND0.81 ± 0.1*91.47 ± 4.14*101.75 ± 4.688.07 ± 0.35*27.26 ± 2.13*
IND + Rosi0.8 ± 0.1187.39 ± 2.7191.93 ± 4.957.11 ± 0.6669.16 ± 2.07**