4.7 Article

Carnosic acid attenuates lipopolysaccharide-induced liver injury in rats via fortifying cellular antioxidant defense system

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 53, 期 -, 页码 1-9

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.11.001

关键词

Carnosic acid; Lipopolysaccharide; Liver dysfunction; Oxidative stress; Inflammation

资金

  1. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET), Chinese Ministry of Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the protective effects of carnosic acid (CA), the principal constituent of rosemary, on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced oxidative/nitrosative stress and hepatotoxicity in rats. CA was administered orally to rats at doses of 15, 30 and 60 mg/kg body weight before LPS challenge (single intraperitoneal injection, 1 mg/kg body weight). The results revealed that CA inhibited LPS-induced liver damage and disorder of lipid metabolism, which were mainly evidenced by decreased serum levels of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and alkaline phosphatase. CA also inhibited LPS-induced oxidative/nitrosative stress by decreasing lipid peroxidation, protein carbonylation, and serum levels of nitric oxide. Histopathological examination demonstrated that CA could improve pathological abnormalities and reduce the immigration of inflammatory cells in liver tissues with LPS challenge. Concurrently, CA potently inhibited the LPS-induced rise in serum levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6. CA supplementation markedly enhanced the body's cellular antioxidant defense system by restoring the levels of superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, and glutathione in serum and liver after the LPS challenge. In conclusion, the present study suggests that CA successfully and dose dependently attenuates LPS-induced hepatotoxicity possibly by preventing cytotoxic effects of oxygen free radicals, NO and cytokines. (c) 2012 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