4.5 Article

Noninvasive Delayed Limb Ischemic Preconditioning in Rats Increases Antioxidant Activities in Cerebral Tissue during Severe Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 174, 期 1, 页码 176-183

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.11.001

关键词

noninvasive delayed limb ischemic preconditioning; delayed cerebral protection; cerebral infarction; antioxidative ability

类别

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin [09JCZDJC21100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. To study the protection offered by noninvasive delayed limb ischemic preconditioning (NDLIP) against cerebral ischemia reperfusion (I/R) injury in rats. Materials and Methods. Healthy male Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups. The delayed protection offered by NDLIP was estimated in light of changes in the neural behavior marker and cerebral tissue antioxidative ability. Neurological functions were studied by observing neural behavior. Total superoxide dismutase (T-SOD), manganese-superoxide dismutase (Mn-SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GSH-PX), and xanthine oxidase (XOD) activity in cerebral tissue and malonaldehyde (MDA) content were detected using a spectrophotometer. Mn-SOD mRNA was measured by the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction method. Results. Cerebral infarct size was diminished in the early cerebral ischemia preconditioning (ECIP) + DI/R and NDLIP + I/R groups compared with the I/R group (P < 0.05). The cortical and hippocampal antioxidant enzyme activity and Mn-SOD expression were increased in the ECIP + I/R and NDLIP + I/R groups. In contrast, the cortical and hippocampal XOD activity and MDA content decreased in the ECIP + I/R and NDLIP + I/R groups. Conclusions. NDLIP decreased cerebral infarct size, increased cerebral antioxidative ability after I/R injury, and decreased peroxidative damage. The antioxidative protection offered by NDLIP was as effective as that offered by ECIP. (C) 2012 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

4.5
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