4.7 Article

Alterations of Na+/K+-ATPase, cholinergic and antioxidant enzymes activity by protocatechuic acid in cadmium-induced neurotoxicity and oxidative stress in Wistar rats

期刊

BIOMEDICINE & PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 559-568

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2016.07.017

关键词

Cadmium; Protocatechuic acid; Enzymes; Na+/K+ ATPase; Cholinesterases; Antioxidant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study assessed the possible protective mechanisms of protocatechuic acid (PCA) against cadmium (Cd)-induced oxidative stress and neurotoxicity in rats. Methods: Male wistar strain rats weighing between 150-160 g were purchased and acclimatized for two weeks. The rats were divided into seven groups of seven each; NC group received normal saline, CAD group received 6 mg/kg of Cd-solution, CAD + PSG group received Cd-solution and prostigmine (5 mg/kg), CAD + PCA-10 and CAD + PCA-20 groups received Cd-solution and PCA (10 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg) respectively, PCA-10 and PCA-20 groups received 10 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg PCA each. Animals were administered normal saline, Cd and PCA daily by oral gavage for 21 days. After which the animals were sacrificed, the brain excised, homogenized and centrifuged. The activities of enzymes (Na+/K+-ATPase, cholinesterases, catalase, glutathione peroxidase, superoxide dismutase) and levels of oxidative stress markers (lipid peroxidation and reduced glutathione) linked to neurodegeneration were subsequently assessed. Results: Significant (p < 0.05) alterations in the enzyme activities and levels of oxidative stress markers were observed in CAD group when compared to the NC group. However, the activities of the enzymes were reversed in CAD + PSG and CAD + PCA groups. Conclusions: PCA may protect against cadmium-induced neurotoxicity by altering the activities of Na+/K+-ATPase, acetylcholinesterase, butyrylcholinesterase and endogenous antioxidant enzymes. (C) 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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