4.6 Article

Effects of treatment with hydrogen sulfide on methionine-choline deficient diet-induced non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in rats

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 215-222

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12389

关键词

hydrogen sulfide; inflammation; methionine-choline deficient diet; non-alcoholic steatohepatitis; oxidative stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and AimOxidative stress and inflammation play important roles in the progression from simple fatty liver to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The aim of this work was to investigate whether treatment with hydrogen sulfide (H2S) prevented NASH in rats through abating oxidative stress and suppressing inflammation. MethodsA methionine-choline-deficient (MCD) diet rat model was prepared. Rats were divided into three experimental groups and fed for 8 weeks as follows: (i) control rats; (ii) MCD-diet-fed rats; (iii) MCD-diet-fed rats treated with NaHS (intraperitoneal injection of 0.1mL/kg/day of 0.28mol/L NaHS, a donor of H2S). ResultsMCD diet impaired hepatic H2S biosynthesis in rats. Treatment with H2S prevented MCD-diet-induced NASH, as evidenced by hematoxylin and eosin staining, reduced apoptosis and activities of alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, and attenuated hepatic fat accumulation in rats. Treatment with H2S abated MCD-diet-induced oxidative stress through reducing cytochrome p4502E1 expression, enhancing heme oxygenase-1 expression, and suppressing mitochondrial reactive oxygen species formation, and suppressed MCD-diet-induced inflammation through suppressing activated nuclear factor B signaling and reducing interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor expressions. In addition, treatment of MCD-diet fed rats with H2S had a beneficial modulation on expression profiles of fatty acid metabolism genes in livers. ConclusionsTreatment with H2S prevented NASH induced by MCD diet in rats possibly through abating oxidative stress and suppressing inflammation.

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

4.6
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