4.7 Article

Low molecular weight fucoidan ameliorating the chronic cisplatin-induced delayed gastrointestinal motility in rats

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 50, 期 12, 页码 4468-4478

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.09.020

关键词

Low molecular weight fucoidan; Chemotherapy; Delayed gastrointestinal motility; Enterochromaffin cell; Cisplatin

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Korea government [MEST] [2011-0030124]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Delayed gastrointestinal (GI) motility is frequent adverse effect associated with chemotherapy due to oxidative stress, activation of 5-HT3 receptors or serotonin releases from enterochromaffin cells. Fucoidan, extracts from brown seaweeds, has been showed antioxidant related favorable pharmacological activities including digestive tract protective effects. Low molecular weight fucoidan (LMF) obtained by acid hydrolysis of high molecular weight fucoidan has been showed more favorable bioactivities. This study was conducted to determine whether or not LMF can prevent delayed Cl motility induced by the antineoplastic drug cisplatin chronically administered, once per week for five consecutive weeks. LMF ameliorating the chronic cisplatin treatment related body weight decreases, delayed GI motility, and enhanced the antioxidant defense systems. In addition, LMF also inhibited the cisplatin treatment related GI gastrin and serotonin changes, including enzyme activities involved in serotonin metabolism and enterochromaffin cells. The overall effects of LMF 10 mg/kg were similar to that of ondansetron 1 mg/kg, a serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. The present results supported that LMF have favorable ameliorating effect on the delayed Cl motility induced by chemotherapy, modulated the Cl enterochromaffin cells, serotonin and gastrin-producing cells with antioxidant effects. This effect of LMF may help improve accompanying digestive disorders by chemotherapy. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. 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