4.7 Article

Evaluation of the protective effects of quercetin in the hepatopulmonary syndrome

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 45, 期 7, 页码 1140-1146

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2006.12.020

关键词

quercetin; comet assay; micronucleus assay; hepatopulmonary syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) occurs when intrapulmonary dilatation causes hypoxemia in cirrhosis. The free radicals may play a significant contributory role in the progression of HPS, and flavonoid agents could protect against deleterious effects of free radicals. The flavonoid quercetin was evaluated in an experimental model of biliary cirrhosis induced by bile duct ligation (BDL) in rats. Quercetin was administered at 50 mg/kg for 14 days to cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic rats. Bone marrow was extracted from animals to analyze micronuclei. Lung, liver and blood were extracted to detect DNA damage using the comet assay. The results showed that the micronuclei and DNA damages to lung and liver were increased in BDL rats. Quercetin caused no damage to the DNA while decreasing the occurrence of micronucleated cells in bone marrow as well as DNA damage to lung and liver in cirrhotic rats. Quercetin showed antimutagenic activity against hydroperoxides as evaluated by the oxidative stress sensitive bacterial strains TA102 Salmonella typhimurium and IC203 Escherichia coli, suggesting protection by free radical scavenging. In Saccharomyces cerevisie yeast strains lacking mitochondrial or cytosolic superoxide dismutase, these results indicate that quercetin protects cells by induction of antioxidant enzymes. The present study is the first report of genotoxic/antigenotoxic effects of quercetin in a model of animal cirrhosis. In this model, quercetin was not able to induce genotoxicity and, conversely, it increased the genomic stability in the cirrhotic rats, suggesting beneficial effects, probably by its antioxidant properties. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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