4.4 Article

Hepatoprotective activity of Chhit-Chan-Than extract powder against carbon tetrachloride-induced liver injury in rats

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD AND DRUG ANALYSIS
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 220-229

出版社

DIGITAL COMMONS BEPRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2013.09.012

关键词

Antioxidants; Carbon tetrachloride; Hepatoprotection

资金

  1. National Science Council, Taiwan, R.O.C. [NSC 98-2320-B-039-042-MY3, NSC 99-2632-B-039- 001-MY3]
  2. Taiwan Department of Health Cancer Research Center of Excellence, Taiwan, R.O.C. [DOH100-TD-C-111-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The capability of Chhit-Chan-Than extract powder (CCTEP, 10% aqueous Ocimum gratissimum L. extract) to protect against carbon tetrachloride (CCl4)-induced oxidative stress and hepatotoxicity in vivo was investigated. Wistar rats were divided into five groups. Group A was a normal control group given only vehicle; Group B, the hepatotoxic group, was injected intraperitoneally twice a week with repeated 8% CCl4/olive oil (0.1 mL/100 g of body weight); Groups C-E, extract-treated groups received CCl4 and different doses of CCTEP (100 mg/kg and 200 mg/kg) or silymarin (200 mg/kg of body weight) daily by gavage for 8 weeks, respectively. The results showed that the CCl4-induced histopathogical changes may be prevented by CCTEP through reducing the intercellular collogen stack, dropping blood serum alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels, and restoring the catalase activity and glutathione content. The hepatoprotective properties were further confirmed by the marked improvement in histopathological examination and by quantitative steatosis-fibrosis scoring. The above results suggest that CCTEP is able to prevent the liver inflammation and fibrosis induced by repeated CCl4, administration, and the hepatoprotective effects might be correlated partly with its antioxidant and free radical scavenging effects. Copyright (C) 2013, Food and Drug Administration, Taiwan. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据