4.4 Article

Effects of Ligustrazine on pulmonary damage in rats following scald injury

期刊

BURNS
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 743-750

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2011.12.026

关键词

Ligustrazine; Burn; Lipid peroxidation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81000024]
  2. Shanghai Science and Technology Committee Foundation [11QA1405100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Organ protection is a routine therapy in severe burn/scald injuries, and damage mechanisms following early scald injury was not been fully elucidated. Our aim was to verify the beneficial effects of Ligustrazine on pulmonary damage associated with scald injury. Lewis rats were subjected to 30% total body surface area (TBSA) scald injury, and were randomly divided into a burn control (S group) and an Ligustrazine-treated group (L group). Lung malondialdehyde (MDA) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) levels were determined and the lungs were examined histologically with immunohistochemistry (IHC) as well for the MHC class I chain-related antigen A (MICA) and Bcl-2 at 24, 48 and 72 h after the injury. The expression of spleen HLA-DR was detected by immunohistochemistry analysis. Selectins and adhesion molecules in lungs and serum as well as pulmonary interleukins were also detected. The lung injury degree was represented as wet/dry (W/D) values and alveolar thickness. Ligustrazine decreased MDA levels and ameliorated the down-regulation of SOD activity. MICA was up-regulated after the scald, and this up-regulation was greatly diminished by Ligustrazine. Bcl-2 was up-regulated after the scald, especially in the L group. The spleen HLA-DR expression demonstrated the immunoregulatory effects of Ligustrazine, which effectively protected pulmonary tissues from scald-induced injury. Our results demonstrated that pulmonay damage associated with autoimmunity and oxidant attack occurred after severe scald. Ligustrazine exhibits significant protective effects on these effects. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. 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

4.4
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