Effect of Theobroma cacao L. on the Efficacy and Toxicity of Doxorubicin in Mice Bearing Ehrlich Ascites Carcinoma

Figure 1. Effect of COE on survival time in EAC mice.

Figure 2. Effect of COE on ECG on doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy in EAC-induced carcinoma. Qualitative analysis of ECG of all the experimental groups; (a) Normal, (b) EAC, (c) DOX, (d) COE, (e) COE + DOX, (f) Pt + COE + DOX, (g) effect on heart rate, (h) effect on QRS complex. All values are expressed as the mean ± SEM (n = 6). Data were analysed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test. ▀ p < 0.05, ▀ ▀ ▀ p < 0.001, compared with normal; Δ p < 0.05, ΔΔ p < 0.01, compared with EAC.

Figure 3. Effect of COE on ascitic fluid volume (a) and % change in body weight (b). All values are expressed as the mean ± SEM (n = 6). Data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test. ▀ ▀ ▀ p < 0.001, compared with normal; Δ p < 0.05, Δ Δ Δ p < 0.001, compared with EAC; ●● p < 0.01 compared with DOX.

Figure 4. Effect of COE on cardiac histology. Photograph of heart sections of different treatment groups stained with haematoxylin and eosin. Plates at 40× magnification. (a) Normal, (b) EAC, (c) DOX, (d) COE, (e) COE + DOX, (f) Pt + COE + DOX, (g) Congestion score, and (h) Oedema score. EAC group (b) showing oedema (red arrow) and congestion (blue arrow). All values are expressed as the mean ± SEM (n = 3). Data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test ΔΔ p < 0.01, ΔΔΔ p < 0.001 compared with EAC.

Figure 5. Effect of COE on liver histology. Photograph of liver sections of different treatment groups stained with haematoxylin and eosin. Plates at 40× magnification. (a) Normal, (b) EAC, (c) DOX, (d) COE, (e) COE + DOX, (f) Pt + COE + DOX, (g) Spotty necrosis score, (h) Venous congestion score, (i) Sinusoidal congestion score, (j) Inflammation score, (k) Kupffer cell hyperplasia score. EAC group (b) showing central vein congestion (red arrow), venous congestion (black arrow), inflammation (yellow arrow) and DOX group (c) showing sinusoidal congestion (white arrow). All values are expressed as the mean ± SEM (n = 3). Data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test. Δ p < 0.05, ΔΔ p < 0.01, compared with EAC.

Figure 6. Effect of COE on kidney histology. Photograph of kidney sections of different treatment groups stained with haematoxylin and eosin. Plates at 40× magnification. (a) Normal, (b) EAC, (c) DOX, (d) COE, (e) COE + DOX, (f) Pt +COE + DOX, (g) Glomerular congestion score, (h) Tubular congestion, (i) Cytoplasmic vacuoles score, (j) Peritubular inflammation score. EAC group (b) showing peritubular inflammation (red arrow) and DOX group (c) showing tubular congestion (yellow arrow). All values are expressed as the mean ± SEM (n = 3). Data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test. Δ p < 0.05, ΔΔ p < 0.01, compared with EAC; ● p < 0.05, ●● p < 0.01, compared with DOX.