Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 331–337 | Cite as

1,8-Cineol, a Food Flavoring Agent, Prevents Ethanol-Induced Gastric Injury in Rats

  • F.A. Santos
  • V.S.N. Rao
Article

Abstract

This study investigated the gastroptrotective effect of 1,8-cineole (cineole) on ethanol-induced gastric mucosal damage in rats and the possible mechanisms involved. 1,8-Cineole (50–200 mg/kg), given orally 1 hr before administration of 1 ml of absolute ethanol significantly attenuated the ethanol-induced gastric injury in a manner similar to nordihydroguairetic acid, a known lipoxygenase inhibitor. 1,8-Cineole showed a tendency to restore the ethanol-associated decreases in nonprotein sulfhydryls, suggesting a possible antioxidant effect. In gastric secretion studies, 1,8-cineole, similar to cimetidine, a known histamine-2 receptor antagonist, demonstrated significant inhibitions of both gastric juice volume as well as total acid output. The protection offered by 1,8-cineole was found to be unaltered by 8-phenyltheophylline or l-NAME, indicating that its effect is not mediated by endogenous adenosine or nitric oxide. These results, taken together with the earlier reports, suggest that the antioxidant and lipoxygenase inhibitory actions of 1,8-cineole are of prime importance in affording gastroprotection against ethanol injury in the rat.

1,8-cineole ethanol gastric mucosal lesions gastric mucus nonprotein sulfhydryls 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFRENCES

  1. 1.
    Kovar KA, Gropper B, Friess D, Ammon APT: Blood levels of 1,8-cineole and locomotor activity of mice after inhalation and oral administration of rosemary oil. Planta Med 53:315–318, 1987Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrade-Neto M, Alencar JW, Cunha AH, Silveira ER: Volatile constituents of Psidium pohlianum Berg. and Psidium guyanensis Pers. J Essen Oil Res 6:299–300, 1994Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Göbel H, Schmidt G, Dworschak M Heiiss D: Essential plant oils and headache mechanisms. Phytomedicine 2:93–102, 1995Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Vincenzi M, Mancini E, Dessi MR: Monographs on botanical flavouring substances used in foods. Part V.Fitoterapia 67:241–251, 1996Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    al-Sereiti MR, Abu-Amer KM, Sen P: Pharmacology of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinales Linn.) and its therapeutic potentials. Indian J Exp Biol 37:124–130, 1999Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pattnaick S, Subramanyam VR, Bapaji M, Kole CR: Antibacterial and antifungal activity of aromatic constituents of essential oils. Microbios 89:39–46, 1997Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Macht D: The absorption of drugs and poisons through the skin and mucous membranes. J Am Med Assoc 110:409–414, 1938Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams AC, Barry BW: Terpenes and the lipid-proteinpartitioning theory of skin penetration enhancement. Pharm Res 8:17–24, 1991Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laude EA, Morice AH, Grattan TJ: The antitussive effects of menthol, camphor and cineole in conscious guinea-pigs. Pulm Pharmacol 7:179–184, 1994Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levison KK, Takayama K, Okabe K, Nagai T: Formulation optimization of indomethacin gels containing a combination of three kinds of cyclic monoterpenes as percutaneous penetration enhancers. J Pharm Pharmacol 83:1367–1372, 1994Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Juergens UR, Stober M, Vetter H: Inhibition of cytokine production and arachidonic acid metabolism by eucalyptol (1,8-cineole) in human blood monocytes in vitro. Eur J Med Res 17:508–510, 1998Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Juergens UR, Stober M, Schmidt-Schilling L, Kleuver T, Vetter H: Anti-inflammatory effects of eucalyptol (1,8-cineole) in bronchial asthma: inhibition of arachidonic acid metabolism in human blood monocytes ex vivo. Eur J Med Res 17:407–412, 1998Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Santos FA, Rao VSN: Anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive effects of 1,8-cineole, a terpenoid oxide present in many plant essential oils. Phytother Res 13:1–5, 2000Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Szabo S, Trier JS, Brown A, Schnoor J: Early vascular injury and increased vascularpermeability in gastric mucosal injury caused by ethanol in the rat. Gastroenterology 88:228–236, 1985Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alarcon de la Lastra C, Lopez A, Motilva V: Gastroprotection and prostaglandin E2 generation in rats by flavonoids of Dittrichia viscosa. Planta Med 59:497–501, 1993Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tambe Y, Tsujiuchi H, Honda G, Ikeshiro Y, Tanaka S: Gastric cytoprotection of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory sesquiterpene, b-caryophyllene. Planta Med 62:469–470, 1996Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ares JJ, Outt PE: Gastroprotective agents for the prevention of NSAID-induced gastropathy. Curr Pharm Des 4:17–36, 1998Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lonchampt M, Guardiola B, Sicot N, Bertrand M, Perdrix I, Duhault J: Protective effect of a purified fraction against reactive oxygen radicals. In vivo and in vitro study. Arzneim Forsch 39:882–885, 1989Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bozkurt A, Yüksel M, Haklar G, Kurtel H, Yegen BC¸, Alican I: Adenosine protects against indomethacin-induced gastric damage in rats. Dig Dis Sci 43:1258–1263, 1998Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Valcavi U, Caponl K, Brambilla A, Palmira F, Monoja F, Bernini F, Mustani R, Fumagall R: Gastric antisecretory, antiulcer and cytoprotectiveproperties of 9-hydroxy. 19,20-bisnor-prostanoic acid in experimental animals. Arzneim Forsch 32:657–663Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wallace JL, Bak A, McKnight W, Asfaha S, Sharkey KA, MacNaughton WK: Cyclooxygenase 1 contributes to inflammatory responses in rats and mice: Implications for gastrointestinal toxicity. Gastroenterology 15:101–109, 1998Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robert A: Cytoprotection by prostaglandins. Gastroenterology 77:761–767, 1979Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robert A, Nezamis JE, Lancaster C: Mild irritants prevent gastric mucosa through adaptive cytoprotection mediated by prostaglandins. Am J Physiol 245:G113–G121, 1983Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Come SJ, Morrisey SM, Woods KJ: A method for the quantitative estimation of gastric barrier mucus. J Physiol 242:116–117, 1974Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shay H, Sun DCY, Gruenstein R: A quantitative method for measuring spontaneous gastric secretion in the rat. Gastroenterology 26:906–913, 1954Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sedlak J, Lindsay RH: Estimation of total, protein bound, and nonprotein sulfhydryl groups in tissue with Ellman's reagent. Anal Biochem 25:192–205, 1968Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peskar BM, Lange K, Hoppe U, Peskar BA: Ethanol stimulates formation of leukotriene C4 in rat gastric mucosa. Prostaglandins 31:283–293, 1986Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Konturek SJ, Brzozowski T, Drozdowicz D, Beck G: Role of leukotrienes in acute gastric lesions induced by ethanol, taurocholate, aspirin, platelet-activating factor and stress in rats. Dig Dis Sci 33:806–813, 1988Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Szabo S, Trier JS, Brown A, Schnoor J: Early vascular injury and increased vascular permeability in gastric mucosal injury caused by ethanol in the rat. Gastroenterology 88:228–236, 1985Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Szelenyi I, Brune K: Possible role of oxygen free radicals in ethanol-induced gastric mucosal damage in rats. Dig Dis Sci 33:865–871, 1988Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Salim AS: Removing oxygen-derived free radicals stimulate healing of ethanol-induced erosive gastritis in the rat. Digestion 47:24–28, 1990Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oates PJ, Hakkinen JP: Studies on the mechanism of ethanolinduced gastric damage in rats. Gastroenterology 94:10–21, 1988Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sato N, Kawano S, Tsuji S, Ogihara T, Yamada S: Gastric blood flow in ulcer diseases. Scand J Gastroenterol 30 (suppl 208):14–20, 1995Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bou-Abboud CF, Wayland H, Paulsen G, Guth PH: Microcirculatory stasis precedes tissue necrosis in ethanol-induced gastric mucosal injury in the rat. Dig Dis Sci 33:872–877, 1988Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Beuscher N, Kietzmann M, Bien E, Champeroux P: Interference of myrtol standardized with inflammatory and allergic mediators Arzneim Forsch 48:985–989, 1998Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mutoh H, Hiraishi H, Ota S, Yoshida H, Ivey KJ, Terano A, Sugimoto T: Protective role of intracellular glutathione against ethanol-induced damage in cultured rat gastric mucosal cells. Gastroenterology 98:1452–1460, 1990Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Robert A, Eberle D, Kaplowitz N: Role of glutathione in gastric mucosal cytoprotection. Am J Physiol 247:G296–G304, 1984Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Szabo S, Trier JS, Frankel PW: Sulfyhdryl compounds may mediate gastric cytoprotection. Science 214:200–202, 1981Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Puurunen J, Huttunen P: Central gastric antisecretory action of adenosine in the rat. Eur J Pharmacol 147:59–66, 1988Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ramkumar V, Nie Z, Rybak LP, Maggirwar SB: Adenosine, antioxidant enzymes and cytoprotection. TiPS 16:283–285, 1995Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cho CH, Ogle CW: Modulatory action of adenosine on gastric function and ethanol-induced mucosal damage in rats. Dig Dis Sci 35:1334–1339, 1990Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Whittle BJR: Nitric oxide in the gastrointestinal physiology and pathology. In Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract. LR Johnson (ed) New York, Raven Press, 1994, p 267Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kuwata H, Ishihara K, Kakei M, Ohara S, Okabe H, Hotta K: Correlation of quantitative changes of gastric mucosal glycoproteins with ethanol-induced gastric damage in rats. Nippon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi 82:28–33, 1985Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nasel C, Nasel B, Samec P, Schindler E, Buchbauer G: Functional imaging of effects of fragrances on the human brain after prolonged inhalation. Chem Senses 19:359–364, 1994Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • F.A. Santos
    • 1
  • V.S.N. Rao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Faculty of MedicineFederal University of Cear´aFortaleza, Cear´aBrazil

Personalised recommendations