4.7 Article

Preventive effect of Coptis chinensis and berberine on intestinal injury in rats challenged with lipopolysaccharides

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 61-69

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2010.09.032

关键词

Coptis chinensis; Berberine; Inflammatory cytokines; Toll-like receptor 4; Nuclear factor kappa B; Reactive oxygen species

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China [2006 BAD12B05-10]
  2. NSFC [30973960]
  3. State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition [2004DA125184-0810]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coptis chinensis has been used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat inflammatory symptoms. Berberine is the main alkaloid compound of C. chinensis. This study utilized a typical lipopolysaccharide (LPS) injured model to investigate the effects of C. chinensis aqueous extract (CCAE) and berberine (major active ingredient in CCAE) in the gut-derived sepsis. In rats, pretreatment with different doses of berberine (30 or 120 mg/kg bw, i.g.; BBR30 or BBR120) or CCAE (containing 9.9% berberine; 300 mg/kg bw, i.g.; CCAE300) prior to the administration of LPS (20 mg/kg bw, i.p.) significantly suppressed the increased tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), interleukin-1 beta (IL-1 beta) and nitrite oxide (NO) in plasma as well as the activation of toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) and nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kappa B) in ileum. In addition, CCAE300 and BBR30 markedly elevated the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px); significantly prevented the increased malondialdehyde (MDA), NO and villi injury in ileum compared with the negative control. Collectively. CCAE300 and BBR30 reduced the LPS-induced intestinal damage by elevating the activities of SOD and GSH-Px and by suppressing the activation of TLR4 and NF-kappa B in ileum. These results indicate that CCAE and berberine are promising agents for preventing sepsis and its complications. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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