4.7 Article

Sodium thiosulfate post-conditioning protects rat hearts against ischemia reperfusion injury via reduction of apoptosis and oxidative stress

期刊

CHEMICO-BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS
卷 274, 期 -, 页码 24-34

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbi.2017.07.002

关键词

Ischemia reperfusion injury; Sodium thiosulfate; Apoptosis; Mitochondria; Hydrogen sulfide

资金

  1. Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR), Government of India, New Delhi [5/4/1-14/12-NCD-II]
  2. Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India, New Delhi [SR/SO/HS-0255/2012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pharmacological agents given at the time of reperfusion can protect the heart from ischemia reperfusion injury (IR). Being a calcium chelator, antioxidant and mitochondrial potassium channel modulator, sodium thiosulfate (STS) was chosen to treat myocardial IR injury. Isolated rat heart model was used to induce IR injury and the hemodynamic changes were monitored using PowerLab (AD Instruments, Australia). STS at a dose of 1 mM given at the early stage of reperfusion significantly reduced the infarct size and recovered the failing heart from reperfusion injury. Its action was based on reduction of apoptosis as evidenced from decreased activity of caspase-3 in the myocardium, lowered expression of casp-3 and PARP, which was supported by absence of significant DNA fragmentation and histological derangement of fibers compared to the injury control. An evaluation of the inter-dependency of H2S and STS biosynthesis in the STS treated groups showed no significant changes in the level of STS, H2S and rhodanese, except the cystathionine gamma lyase activity that improved upon treatment. The mechanism underlying the antiapoptotic, mitochondrial preservation and antioxidant effects of STS were related to the biosynthesis of H2S. The fact that inhibition of cystathionine gamma lyase limited the STS mediated cardio protection supports this observation. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

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

4.7
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