4.2 Article

4-HYDROXYNONENAL: A SUPERIOR OXIDATIVE BIOMARKER COMPARED TO MALONDIALDEHYDE AND CARBONYL CONTENT INDUCED BY CARBON TETRACHLORIDE IN RATS

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2015.1067505

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) [14172MFDS975]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), a halogenated substance that generates free radical species during metabolism in vivo, induces hepatotoxicity, produces oxidative DNA damage, and increased levels of protein carbonyl, malondialdehyde (MDA), and 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE). In this study, Sprague-Dawley rats received single or repeated ip injections of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), and formation and persistence of carbonyls, MDA, and 4-HNE in plasma were measured using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. After a single injection of 500 mg/kg CCl4 the in vivo half-lives of MDA and carbonyl content were 1.5 d and 2 d, respectively, while that of 4-HNE was approximately 10 d. Treatment with CCl4 (50, 100, 500, or 1000 mg/kg) dose-dependently increased these oxidative biomarkers in blood. However, formation of protein carbonyls and MDA was less sensitive than 4-HNE to CCl4. Levels of serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT) and glutamic pyruvic transaminase (SGPT) (hepatotoxicity markers) rose with CCl4 doses. After a single injection (500 mg/kg), the peak level of SGOT was observed after 8 h but SGPT after 24 h. Overall, 4-HNE was more dose-sensitive and showed greater formation subchronically than other biomarkers. Multiple ip treatments with 300 mg CCl4 /kg (d 1, 3, 6, 10, 14, and 21) demonstrated that 4-HNE formation was highest (18-fold, peak/control) and subchronic up to d 21 (last treatment day), unlike other biomarkers. Data suggest that 4-HNE, MDA, and carbonyl content may be useful oxidative biomarkers for exposure to free radical generating halogenated compounds. However, 4-HNE appears to be a more sensitive and sustainable biomarker for toxicological and risk assessments.

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

4.2
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