4.1 Article

Carvacrol modulates oxidative stress and decreases cell injury in pancreas of rats with acute pancreatitis

期刊

CYTOTECHNOLOGY
卷 68, 期 4, 页码 1243-1256

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10616-015-9885-6

关键词

Experimental acute pancreatitis; Pancreas; Carvacrol; Antioxidant response; Oxidative DNA damage; Histopathology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is considered as major problem around the world and the incidence of AP is increasing. Carvacrol (CAR), a monoterpenic phenol, has good antioxidant activity. This in vivo study was designed to evaluate whether CAR provide protection against AP that developed by pancreas injury. The rats were randomised into groups to receive (I) no therapy; (II) 50 A mu g/kg cerulein at 1 h intervals by four intraperitonally (i.p.) injections; (III) 50, 100 and 200 mg/kg CAR by one i.p. injection; and (IV) cerulein plus CAR after 2 h of cerulein administration. 12 h later, serum samples were obtained to assess pancreatic function, the lipase and amylase values. The oxidative stress markers were evaluated by changes in the amount of lipid peroxides measured as malondialdehyde (MDA) and changes in main tissue antioxidant enzyme levels including SOD, CAT and GSH-PX. Histopathological examination was performed using scoring systems. Additionally, oxidative DNA damage was determined by measuring the increases of 8-hydroxy-deoxyguanosine (8-OH-dG) formations. We found that the increasing doses of CAR decreased AP-induced MDA and 8-OH-dG levels. Moreover, the pancreas antioxidant enzyme activities were higher than that of the rats in the AP group when compared to the AP plus CAR group. In the treatment groups, the lipase and amylase were reduced. Besides, histopathological findings in the pancreatic tissue were alleviated (p < 0.05). We suggest that CAR could be a safe and potent new drug candidate for treating AP through its antioxidative mechanism of action for the treatment of a wide range of disorders related to pancreas.

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

4.1
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