4.6 Article

Protective effects of Shengmai San and its three fractions on cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF NATURAL MEDICINES
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 222-230

出版社

CHINESE JOURNAL NATURAL MEDICINES
DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1009.2013.00222

关键词

Shengmai San; Common carotid artery occlusion (CCAO); Antioxidant; Anti-inflammatory

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81173526]
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-11-0738]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To investigate the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects of Shengmai San (SMS) and its ethyl acetate extract (SEa), n-butanol extract (SBu), and aqueous extract (SWe), and clarify the material base of SMS and the roles played by its fractions. METHODS: A mouse model of transient forebrain ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) by means of common carotid artery occlusion (CCAO) was used to investigate the effects of SMS and its three fractions. Histopathological damage, blood-brain barrier disruption, and antioxidant and inflammation-related parameters, including malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), myeloperoxidase (MPO), nitric oxide (NO), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) were measured. The chemical constituents of each fraction were identified by LC-MS. RESULTS: Eighteen lignans in SEa, and thirteen steroidal glycosides and ginsenosides in SBu were determined. SMS significantly inhibited I/R induced formation of histological injury and cerebral MPO activity. SMS showed the strongest antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects against the I/R-caused injuries. SEa showed higher antioxidant activity than the other two fractions and SBu has a slightly stronger inhibition on the productions of NO and TNF-alpha. CONCLUSION: SMS as a whole had the most effective protection against cerebral I/R-caused injuries compared with its fractions, which inferred that it contains different groups of compounds that contribute together to its protective effect.

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

4.6
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