4.2 Article

Contribution of oxidative stress in acute intestinal mucositis induced by 5 fluorouracil (5-FU) and its pro-drug capecitabine in rats

期刊

TOXICOLOGY MECHANISMS AND METHODS
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 262-267

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15376516.2017.1402976

关键词

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU); capecitabine; MgSO4; intestinal disorders; oxidative stress

资金

  1. Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education and the Scientific Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was designed to examine the contribution of oxidative stress in gastrointestinal disorders after an intraperitoneal administration of 5 fluorouracil (5-FU; 100 mg/kg of body weight (b.w.)) and capecitabine oral administration (500 mg/kg b.w.). The animals were divided into three groups: Group A (NaCl, 10 ml/kg of b.w.) considered as control group, group B was intoxicated by 5-FU and group C was the group of animals treated with capecitabine (CAP). To evaluate the secretory and enteropooling effects, we used magnesium sulfate (MgSO4), 1 ml/100g of b.w. as a hypersecretion agent . The mucosal gastro-intestinal specimens were scraped and examined for biological markers of oxidative stress and intracellular mediators. These anticancer drugs caused many intestinal damages manifested by an elevation of fluid accumulation and imbalance in electrolytes secretion. The intestinal tissues from treated rats not only showed a significant increase in malondialdehyde (MDA), protein carbonylation and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) production. but also showed a significant depletion of enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant, such as, glutathione peroxidase (GPx), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and sulfhydryl groups (-SH). These effects were related with histopathological damage and a perturbation of intracellular mediators. As expected, these disturbances were observed in the group of rats poisoned by the MgSO4. Data suggest the contribution of oxidative stress in chemotherapy-induced many disorders in intestinal tract.

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

4.2
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