4.7 Article

Dose-dependent ameliorative effects of quercetin and L-Carnitine against atrazine- induced reproductive toxicity in adult male Albino rats

期刊

BIOMEDICINE & PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 102, 期 -, 页码 855-864

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.03.136

关键词

Atrazine; Quercetin; L-Carnitine; Oxidative stress; DNA laddering; Rat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine the protective effects of co-administration of Quercetin (QT) or L-Carnitine (LC) against the oxidative stress induced by Atrazine (ATZ) in the reproductive system of intact male Albino rats. 36 rats were divided equally into 6 groups. Rats in the control negative CNT group received 1.5 ml distilled water for 21 days. All rats in the other groups received ATZ (120 mg/kg bw) through gavage. Groups 3 and 4 were coadministered with either low or high dose of QT (10 ATZLQT and 50 ATZHQT mg/kg bw, respectively). Groups 5 and 6 were co- administered with either low or high dose of LC (200 ATZLLC and 400 ATZHLC mg/kg bw, respectively). At the end of the experiment, animals were sacrificed and all samples were collected. ATZ significantly increased serum level of malondialdehyde (MDA) and decreased total antioxidant capacity (TAC). Also, ATZ increased significantly the sperm cell abnormalities and reduced both testicular IgA and serum testosterone levels. Testicular DNA laddering % and CYP17A1 mRNA expression were significantly reduced in ATZ group. Interestingly, co-administration with low dose QT or different doses of LC succeeded to counteract the negative toxic effects of ATZ on serum oxidative stress indicators, serum testosterone levels, testicular IgA level and improved testicular CYP17A1 mRNA expression. In conclusion, QT in low dose and LC in both low and high doses exerted a significant protective action against the reproductive toxicity of ATZ, while higher dose of QT failed induce immune-stimulant effect against ATZ in adult male Albino 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

4.7
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