4.7 Article

In vitro scavenging activity for reactive oxygen and nitrogen species by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory indole, pyrrole, and oxazole derivative drugs

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 37, 期 11, 页码 1895-1905

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2004.09.001

关键词

NSAIDs; scavenging activity; reactive oxygen species; reactive nitrogen species; free radical

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was undertaken to evaluate the scavenging activity for reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) by several nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), namely indole derivatives (indomethacin, acemetacin, etodolac), pyrrole derivatives (tolmetin and ketorolac), and an oxazole derivative (oxaprozin). The inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis constitutes the primary mechanism of the anti-inflammatory action of these drugs. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that the anti-inflammatory activity of NSAIDs may be also partly due to their ability to scavenge ROS and RNS and to inhibit the respiratory burst of neutrophils triggered by various activator agents. Thus, the scavenging activity of these NSAIDs was evaluated against an array of ROS (O-2(.-), HO., HOCl, and ROO.) and RNS ((NO)-N-. and ONOO-) using noncellular in vitro systems. The results obtained demonstrated that tolmetin, ketorolac, and oxaprozin were not active against O-2(.-), while acemetacin, indomethacin, and etodolac exhibited concentration-dependent effects. Oxaprozin was also the least active scavenger for HO. among all the tested NSAIDs shown to be active. The scavenging effect for HOCl was not observed for any of the tested NSAIDs. The ROO. was effectively scavenged by etodolac, with the other tested NSAIDs being much less active. .NO and ONOO- were scavenged by all the tested NSADs. These effects may strongly contribute to the anti-inflammatory therapy benefits that may be attained with some of the studied NSAIDs. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. 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