3.8 Article

Vanillic acid attenuates testicular ischemia/reperfusion injury in rats

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1186/s43088-022-00336-7

关键词

Apoptosis; ER stress; Inflammation; Oxidative stress; Testicular torsion; Vanillic acid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the beneficial effects of vanillic acid (VA) on testicular ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) model. The results showed that VA improved oxidative stress, inflammation, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and apoptosis levels in testicular tissues in a dose-dependent manner. Histological examination results also supported the biochemical findings.
Background: Testicular torsion is an important pediatric problem and ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) is involved in its etiopathogenesis. Vanillic acid (VA) is a phenolic acid has strong antioxidant properties. To our knowledge, the ability of VA to reduce testicular IRI has not been previously investigated. It was therefore aimed to evaluate whether VA had a beneficial effect against testicular IRI model in rats for the first time. Twenty-four rats were segregated into four groups: sham control, torsion/detorsion (T/D), T/D + VA (50 mg/kg and 100 mg/kg). The levels of testicular oxidative stress, inflammation, endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress and apoptosis markers were determined using colorimetric methods. Hematoxylin-eosin staining method was used in the histopathological evaluation. Results: Oxidative stress, inflammation, ER stress and apoptosis levels were significantly higher in testicular tissues of rats with only IRI model (p < 0.05). VA applications improved these injuries in a dose-dependent manner (p < 0.05). Moreover, it was found that the results of histological examinations supported the biochemical results to a statistically significant extent. Conclusions: It was revealed that VA application can remove testicular IRI for the first time. This testicular protective efficacy of VA needs to be supported by more extensive preclinical studies.

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

3.8
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