4.4 Article

Glutathione, Cysteine, and Ascorbate Concentrations in Clinically Ill Dogs and Cats

期刊

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 250-257

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0238.x

关键词

Antioxidants; Ascorbate; Cysteine; Glutathione; Oxidative stress

资金

  1. Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition, Melton, Mowbray [2005/038]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxidative stress plays a role in the pathogenesis of many systemic diseases. Hospitalized human patients are glutathione, cysteine, and ascorbate deficient, and antioxidant depletion has been correlated with poor clinical outcome. To date little is known about antioxidant concentrations in hospitalized veterinary patients. The purpose of this study was to determine whether ascorbate, cysteine, or glutathione depletion is present in ill dogs and cats compared with healthy controls. Clinically ill dogs and cats would be antioxidant depleted, and depletion would correlate with illness severity and clinical outcome. Clinically ill client-owned dogs (n = 61) and cats (n = 37), healthy control dogs (n = 37) and cats (n = 33). Prospective, observational, case control study. Erythrocyte reduced glutathione, plasma cysteine, and plasma ascorbate were quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography. Clinically ill dogs had significantly lower erythrocyte glutathione concentrations (1.22 mM, range 0.55-3.61) compared with controls (1.91 mM, range 0.87-3.51; P = .0004), and glutathione depletion correlated with both illness severity (P = .038) and mortality (P = .010). Cats had higher ascorbate concentrations when ill (10.65 mu M, range 1.13-25.26) compared with controls (3.68 mu M, range 0.36-13.57; P = .0009). Clinically ill dogs had decreased erythrocyte glutathione concentrations, which could be a marker of illness severity and prognostic of a poor outcome. Clinically ill cats had an unexpectedly high plasma ascorbate, which could represent a unique species response to oxidative stress.

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