4.7 Article

Dietary zeolite supplementation reduces oxidative damage and plaque generation in the brain of an Alzheimer's disease mouse model

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES
卷 92, 期 17-19, 页码 903-910

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2013.03.008

关键词

Zeolite; Oxidative stress; Brain

资金

  1. Panaceo International Active, Goedersdorf, Austria
  2. Regione Lombardia (Network-Enabled Drug Design)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Oxidative stress is considered one of the main events that lead to aging and neurodegeneration. Antioxidant treatments used to counteract oxidative damage have been associated with a wide variety of side effects or at the utmost to be ineffective. The aim of the present study was to investigate the antioxidant property of a natural mineral, the tribomechanically micronized zeolite (MZ). Main methods: Cell death and oxidative stress were assessed in retinoic acid differentiated SH-SY5Y cells, a neuronal-like cell line, after a pro-oxidant stimulus. In vivo evaluation of antioxidant activity and amyloidogenic processing of beta amyloid have been evaluated in a transgenic model of aging related neurodegeneration, the APPswePS1dE9 transgenic mice (tg mice) after a five-month long period of water supplementation with MZ. Key findings: The study showed that 24 h of cell pretreatment with MZ (1) protected the cells by radical oxygen species (ROS)-induced cell death and moreover (2) induced a reduction of the mitochondrial ROS production following a pro-oxidant stimulation. Looking for an antioxidant effect of MZ in vivo, we found (3) an increased activity of the endogenous antioxidant enzyme superoxide dismutase (SOD) in the hippocampus of tg mice and (4) a reduction in amyloid levels and plague load in MZ treated tg mice compared to control tg mice. Significance: Our results suggest MZ as a novel potential adjuvant in counteracting oxidative stress and plaque accumulation in the field of neurodegenerative diseases. (C) 2013 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