4.6 Article

Rat liver antioxidant response to iron and copper overloads

期刊

JOURNAL OF INORGANIC BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 137, 期 -, 页码 94-100

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2014.04.014

关键词

Iron; Copper; Glutathione; Antioxidants; Liver chemiluminescence; Oxidative damage

资金

  1. University of Buenos Aires [B056, 20020100100369]
  2. CONICET
  3. ANPCYT [PICT 1138-2008, 0946-2012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rat liver antioxidant response to Fe and Cu overloads (0-60 mg/kg) was studied. Dose- and time-responses were determined and summarized by t(1/2) and C-50, the time and the liver metal content for half maximal oxidative responses. Liver GSH (reduced glutathione) and GSSG (glutathione disulfide) were determined. The GSH content and the GSH/GSSG ratio markedly decreased after Fe (58-66%) and Cu (79-81%) loads, with t(1/2) of 4.0 and 2.0 h. The C-50 were in a similar range for all the indicators (110-124 mu g Fe/g and 40-50 mu g Cu/g) and suggest a unique free-radical mediated process. Hydrophilic antioxidants markedly decreased after Fe and Cu (60-75%; t(1/2): 4.5 and 4.0 h). Lipophilic antioxidants were also decreased (30-92%; t(1/2): 7.0 and 5.5 h) after Fe and Cu. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) activities (Cu,Zn-SOD and Mn-SOD) and protein expression were adaptively increased after metal overloads (Cu,Zn-SOD: t(1/2): 8-8.5 h and Mn-SOD: t(1/2): 8.5-8.0 h). Catalase activity was increased after Fe (65%; t(1/2): 8.5 h) and decreased after Cu (26%; t(1/2): 8.0 h), whereas catalase expression was increased after Fe and decreased after Cu overloads. Glutathione peroxidase activity decreased after metal loads by 22-39% with a t(1/2) of 4.5 h and with unchanged protein expression. GSH is the main and fastest responder antioxidant in Fe and Cu overloads. The results indicate that thiol ( -SH) content and antioxidant enzyme activities are central to the antioxidant defense in the oxidative stress and damage after Fe and Cu overloads. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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