4.4 Article

Role of Oxidative Tissue Injury in the Pathophysiology of Experimentally Induced Equine Laminitis: A Comparison of 2 Models

期刊

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 540-548

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2011.0706.x

关键词

Laminitis; Nitrosative stress; Oxidative stress; Sepsis

资金

  1. Morris Animal Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Oxidative stress reportedly plays a role in sepsis-induced organ dysfunction and failure in many species. In septic horses, laminae are targeted; evidence of laminar oxidative stress has been reported experimentally in the black walnut extract (BWE) model. Carbohydrate (CHO)-induced laminitis may be more similar to clinical sepsis-related laminitis than the BWE model in that animals with CHO-induced disease commonly develop laminar failure. The role of oxidative stress in the CHO model remains unknown. Hypothesis/Objectives Markers of oxidative stress will be increased in laminae from horses with BWE- and CHO-induced laminitis. Animals Banked laminar tissue from various time points from animals subjected to BWE (n = 15) and CHO (n = 20) protocols. Methods Laminar 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE) and protein carbonyl content were evaluated by slot blot analysis. Laminar 3-nitrotyrosine (3-NT) immunohistochemistry was performed. Results The number of laminar 3-NT (+) cells was increased at developmental and Obel grade 1 (OG1) time points in the BWE model (versus control [CON]; P = .013) and lower in OG1 tissues than CON in the CHO model (P = .04). No change in 4-HNE content was observed in the CHO model, and no increase in laminar protein carbonyl content was present in either model (P > .05). Conclusions and Clinical Importance These results do not support a prominent role for oxidative stress at examined time points in CHO-overload laminitis and support transient oxidative stress in the BWE model. Tissue oxidation does not appear to be a central early pathophysiologic event in CHO-associated laminitis.

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