| Treatment |
Enzyme Activities |
| ALT (U/L) |
AST (U/L) |
GGT (U/L) |
LDH (U/L) |
CK (U/L) |
AMY (U/L) |
ALP (U/L) |
| Control Oral |
132.6 ± 20.6 |
692.3 ± 51.4 |
1.8 ± 0.2 |
1972.9 ± 158.7 |
953.4 ± 74.7 |
2940.2 ± 174.7 |
103.2 ± 9.1 |
| Acacia niloticaOral |
86.2 ± 3.7* |
488.2 ± 68.7* |
3.1 ± 0.6* |
1889.8 ± 241.0 |
2150.5 ± 257.1* |
2115.6 ± 230.7* |
82.3 ± 6.9* |
| Control IP |
80.3 ± 7.0 |
523.2 ± 94.7 |
2.0 ± 1.0 |
2137.2 ± 159.4 |
351.0 ± 59.1 |
1676.4 ± 230.2 |
46.6 ± 10.4 |
| Acacia niloticaIP |
89.4 ± 6.4 |
368.2 ± 77.1* |
1.8 ± 1.3 |
1935.2 ± 238.4 |
392.8 ± 46.3 |
1513.4 ± 189.5 |
46.0 ± 10.9 |
|
| Results are expressed as Mean ± Standard Deviation (SD) for five animals in each treatment; *p<0.05 is considered significant when the mean of the control animals is significantly different from that of the extract treated animals by T-Test. |
| Table 6: The effects of oral and intraperitoneal administration of 1 g/kg body weight of aqueous stem bark extracts of Acacia nilotica in mice for one month on enzyme activities. |
