4.4 Article

Toxicological evaluation of advanced glycation end product Nε-(carboxymethyl)lysine: Acute and subacute oral toxicity studies

期刊

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 65-74

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.02.013

关键词

Ne-(carboxymethyl)lysine; Oral acute toxicity; Subacute toxicity; Oxidative stress; Mice

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation for Young Scholars of China [31401640]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2012CB720804]
  3. Innovation Foundation for Graduate Students of Wuhan Polytechnic University [2012cx018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ne-(carboxymethyl)lysine (CML) as a novel potential noxious compound in various food products has aroused extensive concern in recent years. This study aimed to investigate the oral acute and subacute toxicity of CML in mice as per OECD 420 and 407 guidelines. Acute administration of 2000 and 5000 mg/ kg CML did not induce any mortality within 14 days, nevertheless some toxicological symptoms and histopathological changes were observed. The estimated LD50 of CML was >5000 mg/kg. In subacute toxicity test, CML was dosed at 200, 500 and 1000 mg/kg in both genders for 28 days. The body weights reduced which was accompanied with the decrease of food consumptions. Hematology parameters viz. RBC, HGB and MCH showed minor alteration but these were still within normal range. Biochemical analysis of hepatic and renal function markers showed significant elevating in AST, ALT, Cr and BUN etc. Histopathological alterations were observed in lung, liver, kidney and spleen. Subacute toxicity of CML involved oxidative stress caused by reducing antioxidant enzyme (SOD and GSH-Px) activities, and significantly increasing lipid peroxide (MDA) level. In conclusion, CML was unlikely to present an acute hazard, but repeated administration could produce deleterious effects on mice especially inducing liver and kidney damage through oxidative stress. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
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