4.5 Article

Protective Effect of Selenomethionine on Aflatoxin B1-Induced Oxidative Stress in MDCK Cells

期刊

BIOLOGICAL TRACE ELEMENT RESEARCH
卷 157, 期 3, 页码 266-274

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12011-014-9887-9

关键词

Aflatoxin B1; Selenomethionine; Antioxidant; MDCK cells; Glutathione peroxidase; Glutathione; Oxidative stress

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31272627]
  2. Research Fund for Doctoral Program of Higher Education in China [20120097130002]
  3. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AFB1 is a mycotoxin which exerts their cytotoxicity through increasing oxidative damage in target organ. Kidney is one of target organs vulnerable to damage caused by AFB1. In this study, Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells were used to evaluate the AFB1-induced cell damage by the MTT assay. The results revealed that the toxic effect of AFB1 on MDCK cells is both dose and time dependent. Half maximal toxic concentration (IC50) was noted at 0.25 mu g/ml of AFB1. Further, protective effect of six different concentrations (0.2, 0.8, 1, 2, 4, and 8 mu M) of selenomethionine (SeMet) was observed against 0.25 mu g/ml of AFB1-induced damage. The results showed that 0.25 mu g/ml of AFB1 caused significant increase in oxidative stress, which was demonstrated by significant increase of malondialdehyde (MDA) level, reduction of intracellular GSH level, as well as GPX1 activity and mRNA level in MDCK cells when compared with control. SeMet protected the cells from AFB1-induced oxidative damage in a dose-dependant manner. Good protection could be achieved between 1 and 4 mu M of concentration. Amid this range, MDA level significantly decreased while intracellular GSH level and GPX1 activity in addition to mRNA level significantly increased. Moreover, cell viability was significantly improved. It could be concluded that SeMet is a potential antioxidative agent to alleviate AFB1-induced oxidative stress.

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

4.5
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