4.7 Article

Measurement of erythrocyte lipids, lipid peroxidation, antioxidants and osmotic fragility in cervical cancer patients

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 326, 期 1-2, 页码 143-149

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0009-8981(02)00300-5

关键词

cervical cancer; lipids; lipid peroxidation; antioxidants; osmotic fragility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Our aim was to examine the structural integrity of red blood cells in cervical cancer patients by measuring the concentrations of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), antioxidant status, cholesterol/phospholipid (C/P) molar ratio, enzyme activity and osmotic fragility of erythrocytes. Methods: This study has been conducted on 32 adult female cervical cancer patients and an equal number of age- and sex-matched normal subjects. Erythrocyte concentrations of lipids, TBARS, vitamin E, reduced glutathione and enzymic activities of catalase and Na+K+-ATPase were measured as well as plasma concentrations of sodium and potassium. The present study also examined the changes in erythrocyte osmotic fragility in cervical cancer patients and normal subjects. The red cell fluidity and permeability were determined by estimating the C/P ratio and Na+K+-ATPase activity, respectively. Results: The release of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances was significantly higher in cervical cancer patients as compared to normal subjects. The increased lipid peroxidation with concomitant decrease in antioxidants was notable in cervical cancer patients. Red blood cells of cervical cancer patients were more fragile than those from normal subjects. Increase in red cell membrane C/P ratio and Na+K+-ATPase activity was noticed in cervical cancer patients as compared to normal subjects. Conclusions: Increased lipid peroxidation, insufficient antioxidant potential and changes in C/P molar ratio as well as activity of Na+K+-ATPase cause structural and functional abnormalities in the erythrocytes of cervical cancer patients. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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