4.4 Article

Effects of dehydroepiandrosterone on ovarian cystogenesis and immune function

期刊

JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 64, 期 1-2, 页码 59-74

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jri.2004.04.002

关键词

dehydroepiandrosterone; lymphocyte; polycystic ovary syndrome; CD4+and CD8+; estrogen; progesterone; oxidative parameters

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of the present report was to study the possible relationship between ovarian functionality and the immune response during cystogenesis induced by androgenization with dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). Daily injection of DHEA (6 mg/kg body weight) for 20 consecutive days induced ovarian cysts in BALB/c mice. As markers of ovarian function. serum estradiol (E) and progesterone (P) and the ovarian immunomodulator prostaglandin E (PGE) were analyzed. In order to know how the integrity of the tissue was altered after induction of cystogenesis, the oxidative status was,as also evaluated. Serum E and P levels. and ovarian PGE concentration were increased in animals with cysts compared with healthy controls. The oxidant status (quantified by malondialdehyde (MDA) formed after the breakdown of the cellular membrane by free radical mechanisms) was augmented, meanwhile the antioxidant (evaluated by the glutathione (GSH) content) diminished during the induction of cystogenesis. Both immunohistochemical and flow cytometry assays demonstrated that DHEA treatment increased the number of T lymphocytes infiltrating ovarian tissue. Therefore. while ovarian controls showed equivalent expression of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell subsets, injection of DHEA yielded a selective ovarian T cell infiltration as demonstrated by enhanced CD8+ and diminished CD4+ T lymphocyte expression. These results show that the development of cysts involves changes in ovarian function and an imbalance in the oxidant-antioxidant equilibrium. We observed also both an increased and selective T lymphocyte infiltration. (C) 2004 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

4.4
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