4.4 Article

Narirutin-rich fraction from grape fruit peel protects against transient cerebral ischemia reperfusion injury in rats

期刊

NUTRITIONAL NEUROSCIENCE
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 920-930

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1028415X.2020.1821518

关键词

Narirutin; cerebral ischemia reperfusion injury; bilateral carotid artery occlusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates the protective effect of Narirutin-rich fraction (NRF) against cerebral ischemia/reperfusion injury in rats. NRF pretreatment improves neurobehavioral alterations and histological findings and reduces oxidative damage.
Objective:Ischemic stroke is one of the leading causes of disability in adults worldwide. The present study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Narirutin-rich fraction (NRF), obtained from grape fruit peel, on cerebral ischemia/reperfusion injury in rats. Methods:Male Wistar rats (180-200 g) were subjected to bilateral carotid artery occlusion for 30 min followed by reperfusion for 24 h to induce cerebral ischemia/reperfusion injury. NRF (150, 300 mg/kg, oral) was administered for 7 days continuously before animals were subjected to ischemia/reperfusion injury. Various behavioral tests (for measurement of motor coordination, locomotor activity, and spatial memory), biochemical parameters (lipid peroxidation, superoxide dismutase, and catalase activity), and histopathological alterations were assessed. Results:Seven-day NRF (150 and 300 mg/kg) pretreatment significantly improved neurobehavioral alterations and histological findings as compared to the disease control group. Further NRF treatment significantly reduced oxidative damage as indicated by improved lipid peroxidation, superoxide dismutase, and catalase activity as compared to disease control animals. Conclusion:The present study demonstrated the protective effect of NRF against cerebral ischemia/reperfusion injury in rats. The results suggest that NRF can be a potential pretreatment option against cerebral ischemia/reperfusion injury.

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