Table 4.
Dose administered | Mean volume of small intestinal content (gm) | % inhibition | Mean weight of small intestinal content (ml) | % inhibition |
---|---|---|---|---|
Control | 0.76 ± 0.04 | — | 0.81 ± 0.01 | — |
CF 100 mg/kg | 0.69 ± 0.02b∗∗∗ | 9.20 | 0.69 ± 0.018a∗b∗∗∗ | 14.80 |
CF 200 mg/kg | 0.58 ± 0.02a∗∗b∗∗∗ | 23.60 | 0.6 ± 0.02a∗∗b∗∗∗ | 26.00 |
CF 400 mg/kg | 0.40 ± 0.04a∗∗∗ | 47.30 | 0.48 ± 0.02a∗∗∗ | 40.70 |
EA 100 mg/kg | 0.62 ± 0.21a∗b∗∗∗ | 18.40 | 0.6 ± 0.02a∗∗b∗∗∗ | 26.00 |
EA 200 mg/kg | 0.53 ± 0.09a∗∗b∗ | 30.20 | 0.51 ± 0.02a∗∗∗b∗ | 37.00 |
EA 400 mg/kg | 0.36 ± 0.14a∗∗∗ | 52.60 | 0.38 ± 0.01a∗∗∗ | 53.00 |
AF 100 mg/kg | 0.68 ± 0.018b∗∗∗ | 10.50 | 0.71 ± 0.01a∗b∗∗∗ | 12.30 |
AF 200 mg/kg | 0.55 ± 0.02a∗∗b∗∗∗ | 27.60 | 0.59 ± 0.01a∗∗b∗∗∗ | 27.10 |
AF 400 mg/kg | 0.45 ± 0.08a∗∗∗ | 40.70 | 0.43 ± 0.02a∗∗∗ | 47.00 |
Loperamide 3 mg/kg | 0.36 ± 0.02a∗∗∗ | 52.60 | 0.4 ± 0.01a∗∗∗ | 50.60 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 6); analysis was performed with One-Way ANOVA followed by Tukey test; acompared to negative control; bcompared to loperamide 3 mg/kg; ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗P < 0.001; CF, chloroform fraction; EAF: ethyl acetate fraction; AF: aqueous fraction; negative controls received 10 ml/kg distilled water.