4.5 Article

Rebaudioside A administration prevents experimental liver fibrosis: an in vivo and in vitro study of the mechanisms of action involved

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED TOXICOLOGY
卷 39, 期 8, 页码 1118-1131

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jat.3797

关键词

antioxidant; cirrhosis; cocultures; immunomodulatory; liver; Nrf2; rebaudioside A

资金

  1. NIAAA/NIH [K01AA025140-02]
  2. National Council of Science and Technology (Conacyt) of Mexico [253037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rebaudioside A (Reb A) is a diterpenoid isolated from the leaves of Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni) that has been shown to possess pharmacological activity, including anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. However, the ability of Reb A to prevent liver injury has not been evaluated. Therefore, we aimed to study the potential of Reb A (20 mg/kg; two times daily intraperitoneally) to prevent liver injury induced by thioacetamide (TAA) administration (200 mg/kg; three times per week intraperitoneally). In addition, cocultures were incubated with either lipopolysaccharide or ethanol. Antifibrotic, antioxidant and immunological responses were evaluated. Chronic TAA administration produced considerable liver damage and distorted the liver parenchyma with the presence of prominent thick bands of collagen. In addition, TAA upregulated the expression of alpha-smooth muscle actin, transforming growth factor-beta 1, metalloproteinases 9, 2 and 13, and nuclear factor kappaB and downregulated nuclear erythroid factor 2. Reb A administration prevented all of these changes. In cocultured cells, Reb A prevented the upregulation of genes implicated in fibrotic and inflammatory processes when cells were exposed to ethanol and lipopolysaccharide. Altogether, our results suggest that Reb A prevents liver damage by blocking oxidative processes via upregulation of nuclear erythroid factor 2, exerts immunomodulatory effects by downregulating the nuclear factor-kappa B system and acts as an antifibrotic agent by maintaining collagen content.

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