4.7 Article

Rutin decreases lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury via inhibition of oxidative stress and the MAPK-NF-κB pathway

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 249-257

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2014.01.028

关键词

Rutin; Acute lung injury; Lipopolysaccharide; SOD; CAT; GPx; HO-1; NF-kappa B; MAPK; Free radicals

资金

  1. National Science Council of the Republic of China, Taiwan [NSC102-2320-B-040-009]
  2. Show Chwan Health Care System of the Republic of China, Taiwan [RD101060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute lung injury (ALI) is a serious disease with unacceptably high mortality and morbidity rates. Up to now, no effective therapeutic strategy for ALI has been established. Rutin, quercetin-3-rhamnosyl glucoside, expresses a wide range of biological activities and pharmacological effects, such as anti-inflammatory, antihypertensive, anticarcinogenic, vasoprotective, and cardioprotective activities. Pretreatment with rutin inhibited not only histopathological changes in lung tissues but also infiltration of polymorphonuclear granulocytes into bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced ALI. In addition, LPS-induced inflammatory responses, including increased secretion of proinflammatory cytokines and lipid peroxidation, were inhibited by rutin in a concentration-dependent manner. Furthermore, rutin suppressed phosphorylation of NF-kappa B and MAPK and degradation of I kappa B, an NF-kappa B inhibitor. Decreased activities of antioxidative enzymes such as superoxide dismutase, catalase, glutathione peroxidase, and heme oxygenase-1 caused by LPS were reversed by rutin. At the same time, we found that ALI amelioration by chelation of extracellular metal ions with rutin is more efficacious than with deferoxamine. These results indicate that the protective mechanism of rutin is through inhibition of MAPK-NF-kappa B activation and upregulation of antioxidative enzymes. (c) 2014 Elsevier Inc. 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