FIGURE SUMMARY
Title

Ameliorative Effects of Rhoifolin in Scopolamine-Induced Amnesic Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Model

Authors
Brinza, I., Abd-Alkhalek, A.M., El-Raey, M.A., Boiangiu, R.S., Eldahshan, O.A., Hritcu, L.
Source
Full text @ Antioxidants (Basel)
Figure 1

Chemical structure of rhoifolin (apigenin 7-O-β neohesperidoside).
Figure 2

Rhoifolin (Rho: 1, 3, and 5 μg/L) improved the locomotion pattern and reduced anxiety in the novel tank diving test (NTT). (A) Representative locomotion tracking pattern of the control, scopolamine (Sco: 100 μM), rhoifolin (Rho: 1, 3, and 5 µg/L), and imipramine (IMP: 20 mg/L) treated groups. (B) Representation of the time spent in the top zone by zebrafish in the tank in different groups. (C) Representation of the time spent in top/bottom ratio in different groups. (D) Representation of the total distance traveled by zebrafish in the tank in different groups. (E) Representation of the distance top/bottom ratio in different groups. The values are means ± S.E.M. (n = 10). For Tukey’s post hoc analyses: (B) Control vs. Sco (100 μM): ### p < 0.0001, Sco (100 μM) vs. Rho (1 μg/L): ## p < 0.001, Sco (100 μM) vs. Rho (3 μg/L): ### p < 0.0001 and Sco (100 μM) vs. Rho (5 μg/L): ### p < 0.0001; (C) Control vs. Sco (100 μM): ### p < 0.0001, Sco (100 μM) vs. Rho (1 μg/L): # p < 0.01, Sco (100 μM) vs. Rho (3 μg/L): ## p < 0.001, and Sco (100 μM) vs. Rho (5 μg/L): ### p < 0.0001; (D) Control vs. Sco (100 μM): ### p < 0.0001, Sco (100 μM) vs. Rho (1 μg/L): ### p < 0.0001, Sco (100 μM) vs. Rho (3 μg/L): ### p < 0.0001, and Sco (100 μM) vs. Rho (5 μg/L): ### p < 0.0001; (E) Control vs. Sco (100 μM): ### p < 0.0001, Sco (100 μM) vs. Rho (1 μg/L): # p < 0.01, Sco (100 μM) vs. Rho (3 μg/L): ### p < 0.0001, and Sco (100 μM) vs. Rho (5 μg/L): ### p < 0.0001.
Figure 3

Rhoifolin (Rho: 1, 3, and 5 μg/L) improved the locomotion pattern and memory in the Y-maze test. (A) Representative locomotion tracking pattern of the control, scopolamine (Sco: 100 µM), rhoifolin (Rho: 1, 3, and 5 µg/L) and galantamine (GAL: 1 mg/L) treated groups. (B) Representation of the time spent in each arm (start, other, and novel arm) in different groups. (C) Representation of the total distance traveled by zebrafish in the tank in different groups. (D) Representation of the turn angle of zebrafish in the tank in different groups. Values are means ± S.E.M. (n = 10). For Tukey’s post hoc analyses: (B) Control vs. Sco (100 µM): ### p < 0.0001, Sco vs. Rho (1 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001, Sco vs. Rho (3 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001, and Sco vs. Rho (5 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001; (C) Control vs. Sco (100 µM): # p < 0.01, Sco vs. Rho (1 µg/L): ## p < 0.001, Sco vs. Rho (3 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001, and Sco vs. Rho (5 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001; (D) Control vs. Sco (100 µM): ### p < 0.0001, Sco vs. Rho (1 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001, Sco vs. Rho (3 µg/L): ## p < 0.0001, and Sco vs. Rho (5 µg/L): ## p < 0.0001.
Figure 4

Rhoifolin (Rho: 1, 3, and 5 μg/L) improved memory in the novel object recognition test (NOR). (A) Representative locomotion tracking pattern of the control, scopolamine (Sco: 100 µM), rhoifolin (Rho: 1, 3, and 5 µg/L), and galantamine (GAL: 1 mg/L) treated groups. (B) Representation of the percentages of preference in different groups. (C) Representation of the exploratory time in different groups. Values are means ± S.E.M. (n = 10). For Tukey’s post hoc analyses: (B) Control vs. Sco (100 µM): # p < 0.01, Sco vs. Rho (3 µg/L): # p < 0.01, and Sco vs. Rho (5 µg/L): # p < 0.01; (C) Control vs. Sco (100 µM): # p < 0.01, Sco vs. Rho (1 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001, Sco vs. Rho (3 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001, and Sco vs. Rho (5 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001.
Figure 5

Rhoifolin (Rho: 1, 3, and 5 μg/L) exhibited an anti-AChE effect and improved the antioxidant status in the zebrafish brain. (A–D) Representation of the enzymes’ specific activity (AChE, SOD, CAT, and GPX) in different groups; (E,F) Representation of the protein carbonyl and MDA levels in different groups. Values are means ± S.E.M. (n = 10). For Tukey’s post hoc analyses: (A) Control vs. Sco (100 µM): ### p < 0.0001, Sco vs. Rho (1 µg/L): ## p < 0.001, Sco vs. Rho (3 µg/L): ## p < 0.001 and Sco vs. Rho (5 µg/L): ## p < 0.001; (B) Control vs. Sco (100 µM): ### p < 0.0001, Sco vs. Rho (1 µg/L): # p < 0.01, Sco vs. Rho (3 µg/L): ## p < 0.001 and Sco vs. Rho (5 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001; C. Control vs. Sco (100 µM): ### p < 0.0001, Sco vs. Rho (1 µg/L): ## p < 0.001, Sco vs. Rho (3 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001 and Sco vs. Rho (5 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001; (D) Control vs. Sco (100 µM): ### p < 0.0001, Sco vs. Rho (1 µg/L): ## p < 0.001, Sco vs. Rho (3 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001 and Sco vs. Rho (5 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001; (E) Control vs. Sco (100 µM): ## p < 0.001, Sco vs. Rho (3 µg/L): ## p < 0.001 and Sco vs. Rho (5 µg/L): ## p < 0.001; and (F) Control vs. Sco (100 µM): ## p < 0.001, Sco vs. Rho (1 µg/L): ## p < 0.001, Sco vs. Rho (3 µg/L): ## p < 0.001 and Sco vs. Rho (5 µg/L): ### p < 0.0001.
Acknowledgments
This image is the copyrighted work of the attributed author or publisher, and ZFIN has permission only to display this image to its users. Additional permissions should be obtained from the applicable author or publisher of the image. Full text @ Antioxidants (Basel)
Your Input Welcome
We welcome your input and comments. Please use this form to recommend updates to the information in ZFIN. We appreciate as much detail as possible and references as appropriate. We will review your comments promptly.
Please check the highlighted fields and try again.
Thank you for submitting comments. Your input has been emailed to ZFIN curators who may contact you if additional information is required.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.