4.6 Article

Eruca sativa Meal against Diabetic Neuropathic Pain: An H2S-Mediated Effect of Glucoerucin

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 24, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules24163006

关键词

diabetic neuropathy; neuropathic pain; glucosinolates; Eruca sativa; glucoerucin; H2S; Kv7 potassium channels

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Instruction, University and Research (MIUR), PON Ricerca e Innovazione 2014-2020-Azione II
  2. COMETA research project Colture autoctone mediterranee e loro valorizzazione con tecnologie avanzate di chimica verde (Native Mediterranean crops and their enhancement with advanced green chemistry technologies) [ARS01_ 00606]
  3. COMETA [1741, CUP B26G18000200004-COR 545910]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The management of pain in patients affected by diabetic neuropathy still represents an unmet therapeutic need. Recent data highlighted the pain-relieving efficacy of glucosinolates deriving from Brassicaceae. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the anti-hyperalgesic efficacy of Eruca sativa defatted seed meal, along with its main glucosinolate, glucoerucin (GER), on diabetic neuropathic pain induced in mice by streptozotocin (STZ). The mechanism of action was also investigated. Hypersensitivity was assessed by paw pressure and cold plate tests after the acute administration of the compounds. Once bio-activated by myrosinase, both E. sativa defatted meal (1 g kg(-1) p.o.) and GER (100 mu mol kg(-1) p.o., equimolar to meal content) showed a dose-dependent pain-relieving effect in STZ-diabetic mice, but the meal was more effective than the glucosinolate. The co-administration with H2S scavengers abolished the pain relief mediated by both E. sativa meal and GER. Their effect was also prevented by selectively blocking Kv7 potassium channels. Repeated treatments with E. sativa meal did not induce tolerance to the anti-hypersensitive effect. In conclusion, E. sativa meal can be suggested as a new nutraceutical tool for pain relief in patients with diabetic neuropathy.

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