4.7 Article

Antioxidant property of α-asarone against noise-stress-induced changes in different regions of rat brain

期刊

PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 52, 期 6, 页码 467-474

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2005.07.007

关键词

noise-stress; rat brain; oxidative damage; a-asarone; antioxidants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Free radicals and other reactive species are considered to be an important causative factor in the development of neurodegenerative diseases. Recent reports have indicated that exposure to loud noise generates excess oxygen free radicals (OFR) in the brain. Antioxidant properties of medicinal plants are attracting more and more research in medicine, to counteract OFR and to minimize the neurodegenerative processes. The drug alpha-asarone (3, 6 and 9 mg kg(-1) body weight, i.p., for 30 days), one of the active principle components of Acorus calamus Linn., was administered intraperitoneally 1/2 h before the animals were exposed to noise-stress (100 dB for 4 h d(-1), for 30 days). We investigated whether 30 days exposure of noise can produce an oxidative stress. Further, if yes then, could alpha-asarone counteract the stress. This was verified by measuring the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), levels of reduced glutathione (GSH), Vitamin C, Vitamin E, protein thiols and lipid peroxidation (LPO) in different regions of the rat brain. All the three doses of alpha-asarone had an effectively protective role by normalizing the increased SOD and LPO, decreased CAT, GPx, GSH, Vitamins C and E and protein thiols due to noise exposure. Thus, action of alpha-asarone against noise-stress may be due its antioxidant property. Our data proved that antioxidant property of alpha-asarone against noise-stress induced changes in the rat brain. Further, more clinical studies are required to investigate effectiveness of the alpha-asarone in noisy environment in human subjects. (C) 2005 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