## 3 Results and Discussion
### Nitric Oxide (NO) Production  
The anti-inflammatory effect of okra ethanol extracts, prepared using different cooking methods, in LPS-treated RAW 246.7 cells was examined by measuring the NO production. The result is presented in Table 2 and Figure 2. Compared to the control, the LPS-treated group had considerably more NO production, with 0 \(\mu\)g/mLROE at 264.67%, BOE at 220.70%, SOE at 254.05%, and SVOE at 267.52%, indicating LPS adequately induced the inflammatory response in the cells. In addition, the LPS- and okra-treated groups showed a significant, concentration-dependent inhibition of NO production from the group of 50 \(\mu\)g/mL concentration--ROE (\(p\) < 0.01), BOE (\(p\) < 0.000), SOE (\(p\) < 0.000), and SVOE (\(p\) < 0.000). All four cooking methods showed excellent inhibitory effects on NO production compared to the group treated with LPS only at the concentration of 200 \(\mu\)g/mL of okra samples. The rates of inhibition were as follows: ROE--46.6%, BOE--58.12%, SOE--55.71%, and SVOE--63.55%. In addition, compared to other cooking methods, the inhibitory effect on NO production was significantly lower for the sous-vide cooking at 100 and 200 \(\upmu\)g/mL concentrations (_p_ < 0.000).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Okra Extract** & **ROE** & **BOE** & **SOE** & **SVOE** & **F-Value** \\
**(\(\upmu\)g/mL)** & **ROE** & **BOE** & **SOE** & **SVOE** & **(\(\upmu\)g)** \\ \hline
0 & 100 \(\pm\) 4.28 & 100 \(\pm\) 3.31 & 100 \(\pm\) 1.62 & 100 \(\pm\) 2.63 & 0 \\
25 & 106.55 \(\pm\) 8.27 \({}^{\rm aA}\) & 108.980 \(\pm\) 4.33 \({}^{\rm aA}\) & 103.09 \(\pm\) 7.26 \({}^{\rm aA}\) & 113.3 \(\pm\) 7.1 \({}^{\rm aB}\) & 1.156 \\  & & & & (\(-\)0.385) \\
50 & 105.76 \(\pm\) 7.07 \({}^{\rm aA}\) & 113.85 \(\pm\) 9.20 \({}^{\rm aA}\) & 107.25 \(\pm\) 7.89 \({}^{\rm aA}\) & 115.55 \(\pm\) 2.38 \({}^{\rm aB}\) & 1.374 \\
100 & 101.72 \(\pm\) 15.39 \({}^{\rm aA}\) & 110.58 \(\pm\) 1.81 \({}^{\rm aB}\)A & 104.44 \(\pm\) 1.35 \({}^{\rm aB}\)A & 118.68 \(\pm\) 5.60 \({}^{\rm bB}\) & 2.488 \\
200 & 103.46 \(\pm\) 13.44 \({}^{\rm aB}\)A & 118.30 \(\pm\) 11.32 \({}^{\rm bA}\) & 99.01 \(\pm\) 1.13 \({}^{\rm aA}\) & 104.91 \(\pm\) 3.50 \({}^{\rm aB}\)A & (\(-\)0.135) \\ \hline F-value & 2.02 & 2.82 & 1.39 & 8.54 & \\ (_p_) & (\(-\)0.932) & (\(-\)0.84) & (\(-\)0.31) & (0.003 *) & \\ \hline \end{tabular} Values represent mean \(\pm\) SD (n = 3). ROE: raw okra ethanol extract, BOE: blanched okra ethanol extract, SOE: steamed okra ethanol extract, and SVOE: sous-vide cooked okra ethanol extract. Means in the common letter (a,b: the level of significance for each cooking method; A,B: the level of significance for each concentration) with the different superscripts are significantly different. * \(p\) < 0.05, compared to the control.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Effect of raw okra ethanol extract (ROE), blanched okra ethanol extract (BOE), steamed okra ethanol extract (SOE), and sous-vide cooked okra ethanol extract (SVOE) on cell viability in lipopolysaccharideaccharide (LPS)-treated RAW264.7 cells.  
Figure 1: Effect of cooking methods and okra extract on cell viability in LPS-induced RAW264.7 cells. Cells were treated with ROE, BOE, SOE, and SVOE (25, 50, 100, 200 \(\upmu\)g/mL), then with or without LPS (1 \(\upmu\)g/mL) for 24 h. The cell proliferation was estimated by an MTT assay. Each bar represents the mean \(\pm\) SD. LPS: lipopolysaccharideacharide. ROE: raw okra ethanol extract, BOE: blanched okra ethanol extract, SOE: steamed okra ethanol extract, and SVOE: sous-vide cooked okra ethanol extract.