3.8 Article

The Radioprotective Effects of Curcumin and Trehalose Against Genetic Damage Caused By I-131

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 99-104

出版社

MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS & MEDIA PVT LTD
DOI: 10.4103/ijnm.IJNM_158_17

关键词

Antioxidants; DNA Breaks; curcumin; nuclear medicine; trehalose

资金

  1. Kashan University of Medical Sciences (Kashan, Iran)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Thyroid cancer has been growing rapidly during the last decades. Radioiodine-131 (I-131) as an appropriate therapy modality is currently using in the treatment of cancer and hyperthyroidism diseases. This radiotracer is considered as a cause of oxidative DNA damage in nontarget cells and tissues. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of curcumin and trehalose on the level of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) caused by I-131 in human lymphocytes. Materials and Methods: First, 6-mL blood samples were taken from each of the five volunteers. After 1 h of preincubation with the antioxidants, a total of 20 mu Ci I-131/2 mL (blood + NaCl) was added to each sample, and then, the samples were reincubated for 1 h. Lymphocytes were separated and the mean DSB levels were measured for each sample through gamma-H2AX assay to evaluate the effects of antioxidants. Results: After 1-h incubation with I-131, the DSBs increased by 102.9% compared to the control group (0.343 vs. 0.169 DSB/cell; P = 0.00). Furthermore, compared to the control + I-131 group, curcumin and trehalose reduced the DSBs by 42% and 38%, respectively. There was a significant decrement (P = 0.00) in the levels of DSBs of the curcumin + I-131 and trehalose + I-131 subgroups compared to the control + I-131 subgroup. Furthermore, there was no significant relationship between the radioprotective effect of curcumin and trehalose (P = 0.95). Conclusion: The use of curcumin and trehalose as antioxidant can reduce the numbers of DSBs caused by I-131. Meanwhile, the radioprotective effect of curcumin was more than trehalose.

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