4.7 Article

Liver necrosis and fulminant hepatic failure in rats: protection by oxyanionic form of tungsten

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2003.12.004

关键词

liver necrosis; fulminant hepatic failure; tungsten; hepatoprotection; oxidative stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hepatic lesion produced as a result of oxidative stress is of wide occurrence. In the present study, the effect of tungsten on liver necrosis and fulminant hepatic failure (FHF) has been studied in rats treated with various compounds known to produce oxidative stress. Supplementation of animals with sodium tungstate for 7 weeks before the induction of liver injury by chemicals including thioacetamide (TAA), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), or chloroform (CHCl3) could protect progression of hepatic injury. Various biochemical changes associated with liver damage and oxidative stress were measured. Hepatic malondialdehyde content, endogenous tripeptide, and reduced glutathione were measured as oxidative stress markers. The activity of xanthine oxidase, which generates reactive oxygen species (ROS) as a by-product, was also determined and found to be perturbed. Tungsten supplementation to rats caused a significant decrease in lipid peroxidation and lowered the levels of the biochemical markers of hepatic lesions produced by TAA, CCl4 (CCl4), or CHCl3. Tungsten could also cause an increase in the survival rate in rats receiving lethal doses of TAA, CCl4, or CHCl3. The protective effect of tungsten, however, is suggested to be limited to the conditions where the hepatic lesion is reported to be due to the generation of ROS. The progression of liver injury produced by the compounds causing oxidative stress without initiating the generation of free radicals such as bromobenzene (BB), or acetaminophen (AAP), could not be inhibited by tungsten. The possible mechanism explaining the role of oxyanionic form of tungsten in free radical-induced hepatic lesions is discussed. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. 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