Propofol and erythropoietin antioxidant properties in rat brain injured tissue
So far, several treatment modalities have been attempted to brain protection in cases such as brain trauma, stroke or brain hemorrhage. However, a treatment method that the effect begins immediately and definitely helpful has not been discovered yet. In this study, we aimed to compare the effects of...
Saved in:
Published in | Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry Vol. 32; no. 1; pp. 81 - 86 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Amsterdam
Elsevier Inc
2008
Elsevier |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | So far, several treatment modalities have been attempted to brain protection in cases such as brain trauma, stroke or brain hemorrhage. However, a treatment method that the effect begins immediately and definitely helpful has not been discovered yet.
In this study, we aimed to compare the effects of propofol and erythropoietin (Epo) on brain injury caused by oxidative stress and antioxidant properties of these agents after closed head injury (CHI) in rats.
For this study, female Wistar Albino rats were divided into five groups: non-traumatic control group, trauma performed group CHI, trauma with propofol (100 mg/kg) intraperitoneally (i.p.), trauma with Epo (5000 U/kg) i.p. and trauma with propofol and Epo performed study groups. Twenty-four hours after CHI, rats were sacrificed and the brains were removed. Superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), xanthine oxidase (XO), nitric oxide (NO), and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels were measured in brain tissue. MDA and NO levels were decreased significantly in Groups Epo, Propofol and Epo
+
Propofol than Group CHI (
p
<
0.01). XO activity was significantly lower in Group Epo than Group CHI (
p
<0.05).
Epo and propofol decreased oxidative stress by decreasing MDA and NO level in brain tissue after CHI. However, combination of Epo and propofol has no significant beneficial advantage than Epo or propofol alone. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 |
ISSN: | 0278-5846 1878-4216 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2007.07.016 |