4.7 Article

Thiosemicarbazone derivate protects from AAPH and Cu2+-induced LDL oxidation

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES
卷 89, 期 1-2, 页码 20-28

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2011.04.026

关键词

LDL oxidation; Thiosemicarbazone; Atherosclerosis; Antioxidant compounds; Serum oxidation

资金

  1. FINEP, Rede Instituto Brasileiro de Neurociencia (IBN-Net) [01.06.0842-00]
  2. INCT-National Institute of Science and Technology for Excitotoxicity and Neuroprotection/CNPq
  3. CNPq
  4. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Several lines of evidence support the hypotheses that the oxidation of low density lipoprotein (LDL) may play a crucial role in the initiation and progression of atherosclerosis. Oxidative stress is one of the causes of the overproduction of reactive species that increase the formation of oxidized LDL Thiosemicarbazones are compounds used in anticancer, antiviral and antifungal therapy; however, its redox activity has been controversial. Thus, we tested, in vitro, a possible antioxidant activity of a thiosemicarbazone derivate, the isatin-3-N-4-benzilthiosemicarbazone (IBTC). Main methods: We measured the conjugated diene formation in serum and LDL as well as the loss of tryptophan fluorescence in LDL induced by two oxidant agents, 2,2-azobis(2-amidinopropane dihydrochloride) (AAPH) and Cu2+. Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) formation in LDL and in different rat tissues was also assessed. The toxicity of IBTC was measured using aortic slices viability assay. Key findings: Our results show that IBTC significantly reduced the AAPH and Cu2+-induced formation of conjugated dienes, increased in a dose-dependent manner the lag phase and the t(1/2) of tryptophan fluorescence, and reduced the TBARS formation in LDL plasma and rat tissues, showing no toxicity to aortic slices. Significance: These results indicate that IBTC is a good antioxidant and a promising antiatherogenic agent for further studies in vivo. (C) 2011 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

4.7
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