4.1 Article

Oxidative stress and tissue pathology caused by subacute exposure to ammonium acetate in rats and their response to treatments with alpha-ketoglutarate and N-acetyl cysteine

期刊

TOXICOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL HEALTH
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 12-24

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0748233712448117

关键词

Ammonium acetate; alpha-ketoglutarate; N-acetyl cysteine; oxidative stress; protection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ammonia is a widely used industrial chemical that is recognized as a potent neurotoxin and environmental pollutant. The present study addresses the oxidative stress and tissue pathology caused by 4 weeks of exposure to ammonium acetate (AMA; 100 mg/kg daily; orally) in rats, and their response to oral treatments with alpha-ketoglutarate (A-KG; 1.0 g/kg), a potential cyanide antidote, and/or N-acetyl cysteine (NAC; 10 mg/kg), an antioxidant. The organ-body weight index of brain and liver was significantly increased by AMA but kidney was unaffected. Also, plasma ammonia levels were significantly elevated without any concomitant change in blood gas status and hematology but levels of catalase, superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, glutathione reductase and reduced glutathione (GSH) in the brain and liver were diminished, accompanied by elevated levels of malondialdehyde. Levels of glutathione disulfide (GSSG) were unaffected, but the ratio of GSH: GSSG was reduced. Plasma alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase and total bilirubin were raised but urea, uric acid and creatinine levels were not altered. AMA also caused temporal, hepatic and renal pathology. However, the renal pathology was not supported by any biochemical alterations. A-KG or NAC alone afforded less protection against AMA as compared to both given together. The protective efficacy of A-KG can be ascribed to its ability to detoxify ammonia and additionally both A-KG and NAC have antioxidant properties as well. The study suggests a new therapeutic regimen for ammonia poisoning.

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

4.1
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