Evaluation of gastroprotective potentials of papain and fucoidan in wistar rats

Unim AP; Edet OU; Okoi OC; Okpo-ene AI; Chijindu OM; Uquetan US; Essien VA

doi:10.61386/imj.v19i1.911

Authors

Unim AP Department of Human Physiology, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medical Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria
Edet OU Department of Human Physiology, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medical Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria
Okoi OC Department of Human Physiology, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medical Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria
Okpo-ene AI Department of Human Physiology, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medical Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria
Chijindu OM Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Cross River State
Uquetan US Department of Human Physiology, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medical Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria
Essien VA Department of Clinical services, Faculty of Psychiatry, Federal Neuropsychiatry Hospital, Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61386/imj.v19i1.911

Keywords:

Gastric cytoprotection, Gastroprotection, ulcer-score, mucus secretion, papain, fucoidan, metoclopramide

Abstract

Background: Gastric cytoprotection involves acid-independent protection of gastric and intestinal mucosal cells against injurious agents. Papain is a proteolytically active enzyme derived from Carica papaya, while fucoidan is a sulfated polysaccharide rich in fucose and sulfate obtained from brown seaweeds.

Objectives: This study assessed the comparative effects of papain, fucoidan and metoclopramide on cytoprotection in Wistar rats.

Method: Twenty male Wistar rats (100-150g) were divided into four groups (n=5). Group 1 served as the control group (Ctrl group), which was administered water and rat feed. Group 2 served as the Papain group (Pap group) and was administered papain at a dose of 800 mg/kg. In comparison, group 3 served as the Fucoidan group (Fuc group) and was administered Fucoidan at a dose of 800 mg/kg, and group 4 was the Metoclopramide group (Met group) and received Metoclopramide at a dose of 30 mg/kg. All administrations were given orally, once daily, for twenty-eight days.

Result: Pepsin output showed no significant difference across groups. Mucus secretion and ulcer score increased significantly in all test groups compared with the control. Mucus secretion was higher in the Met group than in the Pap group. The ulcer score was lower in the Met group than in the Pap group. Histology showed distorted duodenal architecture in the Pap and Met groups, with preserved structure in the Fuc and control groups.

Conclusion: Fucoidan is recommended as a promising candidate for the management of gastric and intestinal mucosal disease disorders, while caution is advised regarding the prolonged use of papain.