Feeding Sprague Dawley Rats With Jordanian Wild Edible Plants and a High Fat Diet Reduced the Malondialdehyde Levels


  •  Anwar A. Al-Assaff    
  •  Hamed R. Takruri    

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of selected Jordanian wild edible plant on lipid peroxidation and lipid profile in adult male Sprague Dawley rats fed high-fat diet. Fiftysix male, adult Sprague-Dawley rats at eight weeks of age, weighing about 200g were distributed into 7 experimental groups, 7 rats each . The groups included a negative control group that was fed a normal fat diet (NFD) and a possitve control group that was fed a high fat diet (HFD) (45% calories from fat). The six treatment groups were fed a HFD for the first 4 weeks of the experiment and a HFD with 9% of one of the selected dried plants for another 4 weeks. The treatment groups are sumac, thyme, clary, gundelia, garden rocket and wild mint. Blood samples were collected from the right heart ventricle. Serum malondialdehyde, lipid profile and fasting blood glucose were measured for rats. Results showed that the addition of different dried plant powders to the HFD did not significantly affect serum levels of TG, TC, HDL, LDL and fasting blood glucose. On the other hand, malondialdehyde (MDA) levels were significantly (p < 0.05) higher in the HFD group (4.09±0.45 mmol/ml) than those of other groups. MDA serum levels for the other groups were as follows: NFD (2.47±0.05), sumac (2.45±0.13), thyme (2.88±0.07), clary (2.97±0.16), garden rocket (2.96±0.11), gundelia (2.92±0.16) and wild mint (2.68±0.09). These levels were not sinificantly different from each other. It is concluded that incorporating dried plant powders in rat diets had a significantly positive effect only on lipid peroxidation assay as indicated by serum MDA levels.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27

Contact