4.3 Article

Urinary Glycosaminoglycans Excretion and the Effect of Dimethyl Sulfoxide in an Experimental Model of Non-Bacterial Cystitis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 503-511

出版社

BRAZILIAN SOC UROL
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-55382008000400013

关键词

cystitis; dimethyl sulfoxide; glycosaminoglycans; rats; protamines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose We reproduced a non-bacterial experimental model to assess bladder inflammation and urinary glycosaminoglycans (GAG) excretion and examined the effect of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). Materials and Methods Female rats were instilled with either protamine sulfate (PS groups) or sterile saline (control groups). At different days after the procedure, 24 h urine and bladder samples were obtained Urinary levels of hyaluronic acid (HA) and sulfated glycosaminoglycans (S-GAG) were determined. Also to evaluate the effect of DMSO animals were instilled with either 50% DMSO or saline 6 hours after PS instillation. To evaluate the effect of DMSO in healthy bladders, rats were instilled with 50% DMSO and controls with saline Results In the PS groups, bladder inflammation was observed, with polymorphonuclear cells during the first days and lymphomononuclear in the last days. HA and S-GAG had 2 peaks of urinary excretion, at the 1(st) and 7(th) day after PS injection. DMSO significantly reduced bladder inflammation In contrast, in healthy bladders, DMSO produced mild inflammation and an increase in urinary HA levels after I and 7 days and an increase of S-GAG level in 7 days. Animals instilled with PS and treated with DMSO had significantly reduced levels of urinary HA only at the Is' day Urinary S-GAG/Cr levels were similar in all groups. Conclusions Increased urinary levels of GAG were associated with bladder inflammation in a PS-induced cystitis model. DMSO significantly reduced the inflammatory process after urothelial injury. Conversely, this drug provoked mild inflammation in normal mucosa. DMSO treatment was shown to influence urinary HA excretion.

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

4.3
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