Treatment Structural aberrations Numerical variation No. of exam- ined cells X-y univalent Chain Ring Autosomal univalent Total aberat ions N-1 N+1 Polypolidy Total Numerical No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Control 250 1 0.40g 0 0.0a 0 0.0a 1 0.42a 2 0.8a 0 0.0a 0 0.0a 1 0.4 a 1 0.4a STZ 250 26 10.4h 20 8 13 5.2e 20 8.0f 79 31.6g 13 5.2f 9 3.6d 7 2.8C 29 11.6h STZ + insulin 250 18 7.2f 15 6.0h 10 4.0d 10 4.0d 53C 21.2e 9 3.6d 6 2.4C 3 1.2b 18 7.2e STZ+ 50 mg costus 250 22 8.8g 17 6.8g 14 5.6e 16 6.4e 69 27.6f 12 4.8e 7 2.8C 5 2.0C 24 9.6g STZ+100 mg costus 250 20 8.0g 15 6.0f 10 4.0d 13 5.2d 58 23.2e 8 3.2d 7 `2.8C 5 2.0C 20 8.0f STZ + 150 mg costus 250 17 6.8e 12 4.8e 7 2.8C 10 4.0C 46 18.4d 7 2.8C 5 2.0b 4 1.6b 16 6.4d STZ + 50 mg nanocostus 250 4 1.6b 3 1.2b 5 2.0b `6 2.4b 18 7.2b 4 1.6b 2 0.8a 2 0.8a 8 3.2b STZ + 100 mg nanocostus 250 8 3.2C 7 2.8C 10 4.09C 9 3.6C 34 13.6 C 5 2.0b 4 1.6b 4 1.6b 13 5.2C STZ + 150mg nanocostus 250 13 5.2d 10 4.0d 13 5.2e 12 4.8d 48 19.2 d 7 2.8C 5 2.0C 3 1.2b 15 6.0d

Table 4: Mean percentages of chromosomal aberrations in rat spermatocytes after treatment with STZ and/or costus or nanocostus. Small different superscript letters are differing significantly.