4.6 Article

The Protective Effect of Glycyrrhetinic Acid on Carbon Tetrachloride-Induced Chronic Liver Fibrosis in Mice via Upregulation of Nrf2

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053662

关键词

-

资金

  1. GuangDong foundation for basic research [2010B06050]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was designed to investigate the potentially protective effects of glycyrrhetinic acid (GA) and the role of transcription factor nuclear factor-erythroid 2(NF-E2)-related factor 2 (Nrf2) signaling in the regulation of Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4)-induced chronic liver fibrosis in mice. The potentially protective effects of GA on CCl4-induced chronic liver fibrosis in mice were depicted histologically and biochemically. Firstly, histopathological changes including regenerative nodules, inflammatory cell infiltration and fibrosis were induced by CCl4. Then, CCl4 administration caused a marked increase in the levels of serum aminotransferases (GOT, GPT), serum monoamine oxidase (MAO) and lipid peroxidation (MDA) as well as MAO in the mice liver homogenates. Also, decreased nuclear Nrf2 expression, mRNA levels of its target genes such as superoxide dismutase 3 (SOD3), catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase 2 (GPX2), and activity of cellular antioxidant enzymes were found after CCl4 exposure. All of these phenotypes were markedly reversed by the treatment of the mice with GA. In addition, GA exhibited the antioxidant effects in vitro by on FeCl2-ascorbate induced lipid peroxidation in mouse liver homogenates, and on DPPH scavenging activity. Taken together, these results suggested that GA can protect the liver from oxidative stress in mice, presumably through activating the nuclear translocation of Nrf2, enhancing the expression of its target genes and increasing the activity of the antioxidant enzymes. Therefore, GA may be an effective hepatoprotective agent and viable candidate for treating liver fibrosis and other oxidative stress-related diseases.

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