4.6 Article

In vivo anti-inflammatory effect of a sulfated polysaccharide isolated from the marine brown algae Lobophora variegata

期刊

PHARMACEUTICAL BIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 167-174

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/13880209.2010.505605

关键词

anti-edematogenic; sulfated fucan; zymosan

资金

  1. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Lobophora variegata J.V. Lamouroux (Dictyotaceae) is a brown marine alga widely encountered in the Brazilian sea coast that presents high content of fucans. Anti-inflammatory effects of fucans are reported mostly in models in vitro, but little is known about its effects in vivo. Objective: To investigate vascular and cellular effects of a sulfated polysaccharide from the brown marine algae L. variegata (SP-Lv) in acute inflammatory models. Materials and methods: SP-Lv was isolated by DEAE-cellulose and analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis and evaluated for its inhibitory effect on paw edema, vascular permeability, leukocyte migration and peritoneal nitrite content induced by zymosan in Wistar rats. Anticoagulant activities and possible systemic toxicity were also evaluated. Results: SP-Lv inhibited the paw edema (120 min: 1.42 +/- 0.11 vs. 0.95 +/- 0.05 mL), plasma exudation (21.53 +/- 0.62 vs. 11.96 +/- 0.68 mu g/g), nitrite content (4.42 +/- 0.33 vs. 2.86 +/- 0.003 mu M) and leukocyte migration (5.15 +/- 1.21 vs. 1.99 +/- 0.16 cells/10(3) mL) induced by zymosan. SP-Lv and l-NAME reduced the paw edema (60-120 min) elicited by l-arginine. However, at 180 min SP-Lv effect was more accentuated and sustained until 240 min, while that of l-NAME was abolished. Similarly to indomethacin, SP-Lv inhibited the entire edema time-course induced by phospholipase A(2), except for the time of 60 min. Discussion and conclusion: The anti-edematogenic effect of SP-Lv seems to occur via inhibition of nitric oxide synthase and cyclooxygenase activities. These results suggest a potential applicability of polysaccharides from alga origin in acute inflammatory conditions.

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