4.5 Article

F2-Isoprostanes and 2-Arachidonylglycerol as Biomarkers of Lipid Peroxidation in Pigs with Hepatic Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 161, 期 1, 页码 139-145

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2009.01.026

关键词

hepatic ischemia/reperfusion; lipid peroxidation; F-2-isoprostanes; 2-arachidonylglycerol; malondialdehyde

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. In the present study, we examined the changes of F-2-isoprostanes (non-cyclooxygenase-derived prostanoids), endocannabinoids (2-arachidonyl-glycerol; 2-AG, arachidoylethanolamide; AEA), and malondialdehyde (MDA: a conventional index of lipid peroxidation) in a porcine warm hepatic ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) model to evaluate the usefulness of each parameter as a marker of lipid peroxidation. Methods. Five female pigs weighing 20 to 22 kg were used in this experiment. Total liver ischemia was achieved by clamping the hepatic pedicle. To prevent splanchnic congestion during occlusion of the portal vein, a portocaval shunt was created with a Dacron graft. After 90 min of ischemia, the liver was reperfused for 120 min. We measured the plasma levels of four markers (F-2-isoprostanes, 2-AG, AEA, and MDA) from a viewpoint of whether it is useful as a sensitive marker of lipid peroxidation. Results. Based on statistical analysis using repeated-measures ANOVA, F-2-isoprostanes demonstrated the most significant changes and were considered to be a highly sensitive marker (P = 0.0001). 2-AG showed less prominent but significant changes (P = 0.0286), followed by MDA (P = 0.0310). However, AEA did not show statistically significant changes over time. The pattern of change in the serum transaminase levels, a classic marker of liver damage, as well as the histologic changes, resembled the profile of F-2-isoprostanes, 2-AG, and MBA. Conclusions. F-2-isoprostanes and 2-AG may be useful as markers of oxidative stress in hepatic PR injury. m (C) 2010 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

4.5
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