4.6 Article

Caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) protects brain against oxidative stress and inflammation induced by diabetes in rats

期刊

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 312, 期 1-2, 页码 39-46

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11010-008-9719-3

关键词

diabetes; caffeic acid phenethyl ester; oxidative stress; inflammation; brain; rat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetic patients reveal significant disorders, such as nephropathy, cardiomyopathy, and neuropathy. As oxidative stress and inflammation seem to be implicated in the pathogenesis of diabetic brain, we aimed to investigate the effects of caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) on oxidative stress and inflammation in diabetic rat brain. Diabetes was induced by a single dose of streptozotocin (45 mg kg(-1), i.p.) injection into rats. Two days after streptozotocin treatment 10 mu M kg(-1) day(-1) CAPE was administrated and continued for 60 days. Here, we demonstrate that CAPE significantly decreased the levels of nitric oxide and malondialdehyde induced by diabetes, and the activities of catalase, glutathione peroxidase, and xanthine oxidase in the brain. However, glutathione levels were increased by CAPE. The mRNA expressions of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha and interferon (IFN)-gamma, and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) were remarkably enhanced in brain by diabetes. CAPE treatments significantly suppressed these inflammatory cytokines (about 70% for TNF-alpha, 26% for IFN-gamma) and NOS (completely). Anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 mRNA expression was not affected by either diabetes or CAPE treatments. In conclusion, diabetes induces oxidative stress and inflammation in the brain, and these may be contributory mechanisms involved in this disorder. CAPE treatment may reverse the diabetic-induced oxidative stress in rat brains. Moreover, CAPE reduces the mRNA expressions of TNF-alpha and IFN-gamma in diabetic brain; suggesting CAPE suppresses inflammation as well as oxidative stress occurred in the brain of diabetic patients.

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

4.6
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