4.0 Article

Protective effects of rooibos (Aspalathus linearis), green tea (Camellia sinensis) and commercial supplements on testicular tissue of oxidative stress-induced rats

期刊

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 10, 期 75, 页码 17317-17322

出版社

ACADEMIC JOURNALS
DOI: 10.5897/AJB11.2210

关键词

Antioxidants; epididymal sperm; catalase; glutathione; green tea (Camellia sinensis); lipid peroxidation; oxidative stress; reactive oxygen species; rooibos (Aspalathus linearis); superoxide dismutase

资金

  1. Cape Peninsula University of Technology
  2. National Research Foundation of South Africa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the modulation of oxidative stress by an indigenous herbal tea, rooibos, Chinese green tea and commercial rooibos and green tea supplements in rat testicular tissue. Male Wistar rats (n = 60) were fed with either fermented rooibos, green rooibos, Chinese green tea, commercial rooibos or green tea supplements for ten weeks. Oxidative stress (OS) was induced in all animals by an intraperitoneal t-butyl hydroperoxide injection in the last two weeks of the study. The superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity increased significantly (P < 0.05) in the testicular tissue of rats that consumed fermented rooibos, green tea and rooibos supplement as compared to the control. The glutathione levels of rats that consumed the green tea supplement was also significantly (P < 0.05) increased when compared with the control. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels were significantly (P < 0.05) decreased in rats that consumed the rooibos supplement, while lipid peroxidation measured as thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) was significantly (P < 0.05) decreased in rats that consumed fermented rooibos and green tea. In conclusion, both extracts of fermented rooibos and green tea could be effective in the protection of testicular tissue against oxidative damage by possibly increasing the antioxidant defense mechanisms in rats, while reducing lipid peroxidation.

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

4.0
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