Antidiarrheal Effect of 80% Methanol Extract and Fractions of the Roasted Seed of Coffea arabica Linn (Rubiaceae) in Swiss Albino Mice

Table 2

Effects of the crude extract and fractions of the seeds Coffea arabica Linn on castor oil-induced diarrheal model in mice.

Group and dose	Diarrhea-free period/onset time of diarrhea (min)	Total number of feces	Total number of wet feces in 4 hours	Total weight of fresh feces (g)	Fluid content of feces (ml)	% inhibition of weight	% inhibition of defecation	% inhibition of diarrhea
Control	55.00 ± 5.05	6.67 ± 0.67	5.17 ± 1.47	0.79 ± 0.06	0.62 ± 0.03	—	—	—
80ME 100	75.167 ± 5.3	6.00 ± 0.58	4.33 ± 1.03	0.7 ± 0.08^d1,e1	0.53 ± 0.07^d1,e1	11.3	10	16.24
80ME 200	83.50 ± 5.42	5.33 ± 0.49	3.17 ± 1.17^a1	0.42 ± 0.03^a2,b1,	0.29 ± 0.02^a2	46.8	20	38.68
80ME 400	93.00 ± 7.99^a1	3.83 ± 0.3^a1	2.83 ± 0.75^a1	0.41 ± 0.08^a2	0.27 ± 0.08^a3	48.1	42.6	45.26
Lop 3	144.33 ± 14.18^a3,c3,d3,e2	3.33 ± 0.71^a2,c1	1.33 ± 1.03^a3,c2	0.12 ± 0.03^a3,c3,d1,e1	0.02 ± 0.002^a3,c3,d1,e1	84.8	50	74.27
Control	54.67 ± 3.86	6.83 ± 0.70	5.33 ± 0.49	0.78 ± 0.04	0.61 ± 0.032	—	—	—
HF 100	67.33 ± 8.58	6.17 ± 1.25	4.5 ± 0.96	0.71 ± 0.05	0.54 ± 0.039	9	9.7	15.6
HF 200	73.83 ± 8.59	5.83 ± 0.60	4.17 ± 0.60	0.67 ± 0.13	0.5 ± 0.097	14.1	14.6	21.8
HF 400	77.50 ± 9.71	5.50 ± 0.99	3.83 ± 0.60	0.53 ± 0.10	0.38 ± 0.073	32.1	19.5	28.1
Lop 3	145.50 ± 14.67^a3,c3,d3,e3	3.17 ± 0.60^a1	1.33 ± 0.49^a2,c2,d1	0.12 ± 0.02^a3,c3,d2,e1	0.02 ± 0.003^a3,c3,d3,e2	84.6	53.6	75
Control	58.00 ± 4.88	6.67 ± 0.42	5.00 ± 0.37	0.75 ± 0.04	0.64 ± 0.04	—	—	—
EF 100	128.67 ± 11.63^a2	5.17 ± 0.95	3.33 ± 0.71	0.48 ± 0.09^a1,d1,e1	0.36 ± 0.08^a3,b3,d2,e3	36.0	22.5	33.4
EF 200	132.67 ± 11.53^a2	4.00 ± 0.58^a1	2.83 ± 0.48^a1	0.23 ± 0.06^a3	0.13 ± 0.02^a3	69.3	40	43.4
EF 400	133.33 ± 13.37^a2	3.67 ± 0.49^a1	2.50 ± 0.34^a2	0.18 ± 0.06^a3	0.06 ± 0.01^a3	76	45	50
Lop 3	147.83 ± 15.17^a3	3.33 ± 0.42^a2	1.50 ± 0.43^a3	0.15 ± 0.029^a3,c2	0.03 ± 0.004^a3,c3	80	50.1	70
Control	57.50 ± 4.83	6.33 ± 0.56	4.83 ± 0.31	0.73 ± 0.05	0.59 ± 0.04	—	—	—
AF 100	80.50 ± 4.01	6.00 ± 0.58	4.33 ± 0.42	0.66 ± 0.08^d2,e3	0.52 ± 0.067^d2,e3	9.6	5.2	10.4
AF 200	87.67 ± 3.85	5.33 ± 0.56	3.50 ± 0.43	0.37 ± 0.05^a2	0.24 ± 0.05^a3	45.6	15.8	27.5
AF 400	95.67 ± 8.13^a2	4.17 ± 0.48	3.33 ± 0.42	0.29 ± 0.05^a3,c3	0.16 ± 0.04^a3	60.3	34.1	31
Lop 3	150.17 ± 12.08^a3,c3,d3,e3	3.17 ± 0.60^a2,c1	1.33 ± 0.33^a3,c3,d2,e2	0.13 ± 0.02^a3,c3,d1	0.02 ± 0.004^a3,c3,d1	76.0	49.9	72.5

All values are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) (n = 6); ^acompared to the control, ^bcompared to the positive standard, ^ccompared to 100 mg/kg, ^dcompared to 200 mg/kg, ^ecompared to 400 mg/kg, , , and ; 80ME = 80% hydromethanolic extract, HF = hexane fraction, EF = ethyl acetate fraction, AF = aqueous fraction, and Lop3 = loperamide 3 mg/kg. Controls received 10 ml/kg distilled water (for AF and 80ME) and 2% tween 80 (for EF and HF).