4.1 Article

Supplementary Catechins Attenuate Cooking-Oil-Fumes-Induced Oxidative Stress in Rat Lung

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY
卷 52, 期 3, 页码 151-159

出版社

CHINESE PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.4077/CJP.2009.AMH022

关键词

catechins; reactive oxygen species; HSP70; cooking-oil-fumes; apoptosis; lung

资金

  1. National Science Council of the Republic of China [NSC96-2320-B002-007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cooking-oil-fumes containing toxic components may induce reactive oxygen species (ROS) to oxidize macromolecules and lead to acute lung injury. Our previous study showed that a decaffineated green tea extract containing (+)-catechin, (-)-epicatechin, (+)-gallocatechin, (-)-epigallocatechin, (-)-epicatechin gallate, and (-)-epigallocatechin gallate can inhibit oxidation,, inflammation, and apoptosis. We determined whether the catechins supplement may reduce cooking-oil-fumes-induced acute lung injury in rat. In the urethane-anesthetized Wistar rat subjected to 30-120 min of cooking-oil-fumes exposure, blood ROS significantly, increased in the recovery stage. After 30-min cooking-oil-fumes exposure, the enhanced blood ROS level further increased in a time-dependent manner during the recovery stage (321 +/- 69 counts/10 s after 1 h, 540 +/- 89 counts/10 s after 2 h. and 873 +/- 112 counts/10 s after 4 h). Four hours after 30-min cooking-oil-fumes exposure, lung lavage neutrophils and ROS its well as lung tissue dityrosine and 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal increased significantly. Two weeks of catechins supplement significantly reduced the enhanced lavage ROS, lung dityrosine and 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal level. Cooking-oil-fumes-induced oxidative stress decreased lung Bcl-2/Bax ratio and HSP70 expression, but catechins treatment preserved the downregulation of Bcl-2/Bax ratio and HSP70 expression. We conclude that catechins supplement attenuates cooking-oil-fumes-induced acute lung injury via the preservation of oil-smoke induced downregulation of antioxidant, antiapoptosis, and chaperone protein expression.

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

4.1
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