4.5 Article

Behavioral and biochemical investigations to explore pharmacological potential of PPAR-gamma agonists in vascular dementia of diabetic rats

期刊

PHARMACOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY AND BEHAVIOR
卷 100, 期 2, 页码 320-329

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2011.08.020

关键词

Vascular endothelial dysfunction; Alzheimer's disease; Pioglitazone; Donepezil; Morris water maze; Oxidative stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vascular dementia (VaD) is the second most common dementing illness. We have recently reported that diabetes induces VaD in rats. The present study has been designed to investigate the potential of peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptors-gamma (PPAR-gamma) agonists in diabetes induced VaD of Wistar Albino rats. The rats were administered, single dose of streptozotocin (STZ) for the induction of diabetes. Morris water-maze (MWM) test was employed for testing learning and memory. Serum glucose, bodyweight, vascular endothelial function, serum nitrite/nitrate levels, aortic and brain oxidative stress levels (viz. aortic superoxide anion levels, brain thiobarbituric acid reactive species and brain glutathione levels) and brain acetylcholinesterase activity were also tested. STZ treated animals performed poorly on MWM hence reflecting impairment of learning and memory behavior with a significant reduction in body weight, impairment of vascular endothelial function, and decrease in serum nitrite/nitrate levels, increase in serum glucose, aortic and brain oxidative stress levels and brain acetylcholinesterase activity. Treatment of PPAR-gamma agonists, pioglitazone as well as rosiglitazone significantly reversed, diabetes induced impairment of learning and memory behavior, endothelial function, and changes in various biochemical parameters. It is concluded that PPAR-gamma modulators pioglitazone and rosiglitazone may be considered as potential pharmacological agents for the management of diabetes induced VaD. (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

4.5
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