4.7 Article

Innovative Blood Antioxidant Test in Standardbred Trotter Horses

期刊

ANTIOXIDANTS
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antiox10122013

关键词

blood markers; horses; standardbreds; sports medicine; KRL test; oxidative stress; reactive oxygen species

资金

  1. University of Milan through the APC initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study validated the Kit Radicaux Libres (KRL) test as a tool to determine oxidative stress in athletic horses. Results showed higher KRL values before taming and at 60 days of taming, with training affecting total protein levels but not muscle enzymes. These findings confirm the role of exercise in free radical production and highlight the potential of the KRL test for assessing oxidative stress in athletic horses.
In athletic horses, prolonged and intense training gives rise to an imbalance between the production of free radicals and antioxidant molecules, leading to oxidative stress. Considering the relation between exercise and oxidative stress in horses, the present work aims to validate the Kit Radicaux Libres (KRL) test as a tool to verify the influence of taming, training and racing on the total blood antioxidant activity and some haematochemical parameters. Five Italian Standardbred racehorses (two males and three females, aged 12 +/- 1 months) from the same training center were selected and monitored upon arrival and during the following year until the racing season. Blood samples were obtained at different timepoints, corresponding to different steps of training. The data showed that KRL values were higher (p < 0.001) before the beginning of the taming period and at 60 days of taming, compared with the training and racing periods; additionally, the total protein value was affected by the training program, whereas no effects of training on muscle enzymes were detected. These results confirm that exercise plays a role in the production of free radicals and show that the KRL test may represent a valid method to determine oxidative stress in athletic horses.

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