4.5 Article

Effects of sevoflurane on NF-DB and TNF-α expression in renal ischemia-reperfusion diabetic rats

期刊

INFLAMMATION RESEARCH
卷 66, 期 10, 页码 901-910

出版社

SPRINGER BASEL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s00011-017-1071-1

关键词

Diabetes mellitus; Renal ischemia-reperfusion injury; Sevoflurane; NF-kappa B; TNF-alpha

资金

  1. Planning Project of Science and Technology of Zhuhai [PC2010B0410 2028]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury is the main reason of acute renal failure. However, inflammatory response and cell apoptosis are important mechanisms implicated in I/R injury. Recent studies indicated that nuclear factor kappa B (NF-DB) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) are both involved in these mechanisms. Sevoflurane reduces NF-DB and TNF-alpha expression in rats' heart and decreases their renal I/R injury. However, few studies are available regarding the effect of sevoflurane on kidney of diabetic rats. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate sevoflurane effect on NF-DB and TNF-alpha expression in diabetic rats to decrease renal I/R injury. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into five groups: Group A, non-diabetic rats underwent sham operation; Group B, non-diabetic rats with renal I/R injury; Group C, diabetic rats underwent sham operation; Group D, diabetic rats with renal I/R injury; Group E, diabetic rats with renal I/R injury after sevoflurane pretreatment. Rats of Group E were exposed to 2.5% sevoflurane for 30 min. After 24 h, creatinine (Cr), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), renal cell apoptosis, and NF-DB and TNF-alpha expression in kidney were assessed. Renal cell apoptosis, NF-DB, and TNF-alpha expression were significantly higher in diabetic rats with renal I/R injury group compared to diabetic rats that underwent sham operation (P < 0.01). These changes were significantly reduced by sevoflurane (P < 0.01). Sevoflurane exerted a protective effect against renal injury by lowering the expression of NF-DB and TNF-alpha in renal I/R diabetic rats.

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

4.5
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