4.2 Article

Protective effect of resveratrol against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in HEI-OC1 auditory cells

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.11.008

关键词

Resveratrol; Cisplatin; Reactive oxygen species; Ototoxicity

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [NRF-2014-071497, 2014R1A1A2053608]
  2. Korea University Grant [K1220291]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Cisplatin is an effective chemotherapeutic drug, but it generates reactive oxygen species (ROS) that induce severe adverse effects such as ototoxicity. Resveratrol reportedly prevents oxidative stress-induced cell death. Thus, we hypothesized that the anti-oxidative effect of resveratrol could protect against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity. The present study examined the protective effect of resveratrol against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in HEI-OC1 auditory cells. Methods: HEI-OC1 cells were pretreated with resveratrol at mu M for 24 h and then exposed to 15 mu M cisplatin for 48 h. Resulting cytotoxicity was measured by the MIT method, and intracellular ROS was measured using flow cytometry. Protective effect of resveratrol was compared with other anti-oxidants. Results: Pretreatment with resveratrol 1 mu M protected HEI-OC1 auditory cells against cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity and significantly reduced a cisplatin-induced increase in ROS. Resveratrol provided significant protection against 15 mu M cisplatin applied for 48 h (50.8% cell viability in the cisplatin group vs. 57.6% in the cisplatin-plus-resveratrol group), and there was a 9% decrease in cisplatin-induced ROS associated with resveratrol. Conclusions: This is the study investigating the protective effects of resveratrol against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in an auditory cell line. Resveratrol significantly reduced a cisplatin-induced increase in ROS and thereby inhibited cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland 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

4.2
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