4.4 Review

Mechanisms of Herbal Nephroprotection in diabetes mellitus

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIABETES RESEARCH
卷 2020, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2020/5710513

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is a leading cause of kidney morbidity. Despite the multilayered complexity of the mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of DN, the conventional treatment is limited to just a few drug classes fraught with the risk of adverse events, including the progression of renal dysfunction. Phytoceuticals offer a promising alternative as they act on the many-sidedness of DN pathophysiology, multitargeting its intricacies. This paper offers a review of the mechanisms underlying the protective action of these phytoagents, including boosting the antioxidant capabilities, suppression of inflammation, averting the proliferative and sclerosing/fibrosing events. The pathogenesis of DN is viewed as a continuum going from the original offense, high glucose, through the noxious products it generates (advanced glycation end-products, products of oxidative and nitrosative stress) and the signaling chains consequently brought into action, to the harmful mediators of inflammation, sclerosis, and proliferation that eventually lead to DN, despite the countervailing attempts of the protective mechanisms. Special attention was given to the various pathways involved, pointing out the ability of the phytoagents to hinder the deleterious ones (especially those leading to, driven by, or associated with TGF-beta activation, SREBP, Smad, MAPK, PKC, NF-kappa B, NLRP3 inflammasome, and caspase), to promote the protective ones (PPAR-alpha, PPAR-gamma, EP4/Gs/AC/cAMP, Nrf2, AMPK, and SIRT1), and to favorably modulate those with potentially dual effect (PI3K/Akt). Many phytomedicines have emerged as potentially useful out ofin vitroandin vivostudies, but the scarcity of human trials seriously undermines their usage in the current clinical practice-an issue that stringently needs to be addressed.

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

4.4
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