589P Granada Congress and Exhibitions Centre
6th European Congress of Pharmacology (EPHAR 2012)

 

 

Investigation of the anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects from an extract of the microalgae Chlamydomonas pumilioniformis (Chlorophyta)

Andressa de Andrade1, Cristiana Lima Dora1, Danilo Giroldo2, Gianni Peraza3, Lucas Maria2, Ana Luiza Muccillo-Baisch1,3. 1Universidade Federal do Rio Grande/FURG- Faculdade de Medicina/FAMED, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde, Brazil, 2Universidade Federal do Rio Grande/FURG-Instituto de Ciências Biológicas/ICB, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia dos Ambientes Costeiros, Brazil, 3Universidade Federal do Rio Grande/FURG-Instituto de Ciências Biológicas/ICB, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Fisiológicas, Brazil

 

A variety of biologically active compounds with pharmacological applications has been reported to occur in aquatic organisms and microalgae are an interesting group, constituting an important source of probiotic agents with positive effects on the health of animals and man. The present study was undertaken to provide a set of data about a cellular and extracellular crude extract from the microalgae Chlamydomonas pumilioniformis. The antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects were investigated against different experimental models in mice. We also characterized carbohydrate content and polysaccharide composition in both cellular and extracellular extracts. When evaluated against writhing test, the extract significantly inhibited abdominal constriction by 26.7 and 78.3% respectively for extracellular and cellular crude extract (Table I). In the formalin test, the extract of Chlamydomonas pumilioniformis inhibited 12.0% and 43.7% in the first phase and 94.7% and 85.5% in the second phase respectively for cellular and intracellular crude extract (Table II). Extract from Chlamydomonas pumilioniformis significantly reduced hind paw swelling. No mortality was observed with the doses tested with acute intraperitoneal or oral administration from crude extract. These results demonstrated that Chlamydomonas pumilioniformis extracts possesses antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects.

These findings encourage further pharmacological studies, to evidence the mechanism of action of the extract, as well to isolated active compounds present in Chlamydomonas pumilioniformis extract.

Table I. Effect of Chlamydomonas sp. aqueous extract on acetic acid-induced writhing behavior in mice.

Treatment (mg/kg, i.p.) Number of abdominal constrictions (during 25 min) % of writhes inhibition
Control (8)
Morphine (8)
Diclofenac (8)
Cellular extract (8)
Extracellular extract (8)
76.5±3.4
0.4±0.3*
43.7±3.3*
17.1±5.6*#
57.9±5.5*#
-
98.73
42.9
78.31
26.73

Values are expressed as mean ± SEM. To the control group only saline solution (0.9%) was administered. i.p., intraperitoneal administration. In parenthesis - number of animals in each group. Differences between groups were statistically analyzed by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Mann Whitney test. *P < 0.05 compared with the control group; #P < 0.05 compared with the intracellular group.

Table II. Antinociceptive effect of aqueous extract of Chlamydomonas sp. on formalin-induced pain in mice.

Treatment group (mg/kg, i.p.) First phase (s) Inhibition (%) Second phase (s) Inhibition(%)
Control (8)
Morphine (8)
Diclofenac (8)
Cellular extract (8)
Extra cellular extract (8)
66.5±5.1
53.4±9.0
61,3±7,1
58.5±4.5
37.4±3.2*#
-
19.7
7,1±
12.0
43.7
32.9±9.8
4.4±4.4*
0,0±0,0
1.7±1.3*
4,7±3.2*
-
86.7
100
94.7
85.5

The amount of time spent in licking the injected paw was recorded in two phases: first phase: 0–5 min post-formalin injection; second phase: 20–25 min post-injection. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM. In parenthesis - number of animals/groups. To the control group, only saline solution (0.9%) was administered. i.p., intraperitoneal administration. n = 10 in each group. Differences between groups were statistically analyzed by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Mann Whitney test. *P < 0.05 vs. control group; #P < 0.05 vs. intracellular group

Andressa de Andradea, Gianni Goulart Perazab, Lucas da Silva Mariac, Maria Cristina Flores Soaresac, Danilo Giroldoc, Ana Luiza Muccillo-Baischaab*

aPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde, Faculdade de Medicina bPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Fisiológicas – Fisiologia Animal Comparada and cPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Biologia de Ambientes Continentais, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, av. Itália, km 8, s/n, 96.201-900, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil