4.6 Article

Mangifera indica L. (Vimang) protection against serum oxidative stress in elderly humans

期刊

ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL RESEARCH
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 158-164

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2005.04.017

关键词

aging; Mangifera indica L.; antioxidants; oxidative stress; Vimang

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. We searched for the protective effect of a natural extract from stem bark of Mangifera indica L. extract (Vimang) on age-related oxidative stress. Methods. Healthy subjects were classified in two groups, elderly (>65 years) and young group (<26 years). The elderly group received a daily dose of 900 mg of extract (three coated Vimang tablets, 300 mg each, before meals) for 60 days. Serum concentration of lipid peroxides, serum peroxidation potential, extracellular superoxide dismutase activity (EC-SOD), glutathione status (GSH, GSSG, GSSG/GSH ratio)) and total antioxidant status (TAS) were determined before (both experimental groups) and 15, 30, and 60 days after treatment (only elderly group). We confirmed the existence of an age-associated oxidative stress in human serum as documented by an age-related increase in serum lipoperoxides and GSSG and a decrease in serum antioxidant capacity and EC-SOD activity. Results. Vimang tablet supplementation increased EC-SOD activity (p <0.01) and serum TAS (p <0.01). It also decreased serum thiobarbituric reactive substances (p <0.01) and GSSG levels (p <0.05). We suggested that the antioxidant components of the extract could have been utilized by the cells (especially blood and endothelial cells), sparing the intra- and extracellular antioxidant system and increasing serum peroxil scavenging capacity, thus preventing age-associated increase in GSH oxidation and lipoperoxidation. Conclusions. Vimang tablets prevent age-associated oxidative stress in elderly humans, which could retard the onset of age-associated disease, improving the quality of life for elderly persons. (C) 2006 IMSS. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.6
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