3.9 Article

Protective effect of Flos carthami extract against ethylene glycol-induced urolithiasis in rats

期刊

UROLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 40, 期 6, 页码 655-661

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00240-012-0472-4

关键词

Calcium oxalate; Ethylene glycol; Traditional Chinese medicine; Flos carthami

资金

  1. Department of Health [DOH101-TD-B-111-004]
  2. National Science Council of Taiwan [NSC 98-2314-B-039-023-MY3, NSC 100-2320-B-039-008-MY2]
  3. China Medical University Hospital [DMR-100-068]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flos carthami (FC), also known as Carthamus tinctorius, is a traditional Chinese herbal plant that has been prescribed since centuries for treating various symptoms related to blood circulation improvement. This study aimed to investigate the effects of FC on calcium oxalate (CaOx) formation in ethylene glycol (EG)-fed rats. A total of 50 male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into the following 6 groups: group 1, as the normal control (n = 5); group 2 received gastric gavages of starch and 0.75% EG (placebo, n = 5) as a stone inducer; group 3 (n = 10) received EG and potassium citrate as positive controls; group 4 (n = 10) received 0.75% EG and 300 mg/day FC; group 5 (n = 10) was treated with EG and 600 mg/day FC; group 6 (n = 10) received with EG and 1,200 mg/day FC. For all experimental animals, 24-h urine and blood samples were analyzed at the beginning and end of the experiment. Kidney tissue was histopathologically examined using a polarized light microscope, and crystal deposits were evaluated by a semi-quantitative scoring method; these scores were significantly lower in the FC groups (600 and 1,200 mg/day) than in the placebo group. Thus, FC administration appeared to inhibit the deposition of CaOx crystal EG-fed rats. We, therefore, consider that FC may be effective for preventing stone disease, albeit with certain side effects, such as a bleeding tendency. Further clinical trials are needed for evaluating its benefits and possible side effects.

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

3.9
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