4.6 Article

Protective role of poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid nanoparticle loaded with resveratrol against isoproterenol-induced myocardial infarction

期刊

BIOFACTORS
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 421-431

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/biof.1611

关键词

eNOS; iNOS; isoproterenol; myocardial infarction; PLGA; resveratrol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our study is aimed at evaluating the effects of pretreatment with Poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid nanoparticle loaded with resveratrol (RSV PLGA NPs) compared to conventional resveratrol (RSV) on isoproterenol (ISO) induced myocardial infarction (MI) in rats. Sixty rats were randomly divided into six groups of 10 rats each. RSV and RSV PLGA NPs were given by gavage in two different doses (50 mg/kg body weight [BW] and 100 mg/kg BW) for 3 weeks. RSV and RSV PLGA NPs were given for 2 weeks starting 1 week before ISO administration. The blood samples were taken 24 hr after the last dose of ISO. The antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and cardioprotective effects were evaluated in all groups. Only 100 mg/kg dose of RSV and both doses of RSV PLGA NPs offered a cardioprotective effect by preventing cardiac troponin T (cTnT) levels, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) activities leakage from cardiomyocytes, with the best result for RSV PLGA NPs. All the oxidative stress parameters were significantly improved after RSV PLGA NPs compared to RSV pretreatment. RSV PLGA NPs were more efficient than RSV in limiting the increase in inflammatory cytokine expressions such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), interleukin 1 beta (IL-1 beta), and NF-kappaB (NF-kB) expression. In addition, RSV PLGA NPs significantly upregulated eNOS expression and downregulated iNOS expression. RSV PLGA NPs better prevented myocardial necrosis and reduced interstitial edema and neutrophil infiltration than RSV, on histopathological examination. Therefore, improving the bioactivity of RSV by nanotechnology may help limit cardiac injury after myocardial infarction.

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

4.6
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