Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2015 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 4

In vivo nephroprotective efficacy of propolis against contrast-induced nephropathy

Pages
317–321
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This function is most likely exerted through the antioxidant and antitoxic activities of propolis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE Contrast agents administered in diagnostic imaging or interventional procedures of clinical radiology may cause contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN).
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODSIn vivo experiments were performed on 35 male rats in five groups: control, diatrizoate alone, and pretreatments with propolis, NAC, or calpain one hour before diatrizoate administration.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This function is most likely exerted through the antioxidant and antitoxic activities of propolis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

PURPOSE Contrast agents administered in diagnostic imaging or interventional procedures of clinical radiology may cause contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). Preventive measures against CIN involve pharma-ceutical pretreatments, such as N-acetylcystein (NAC) or calpain, but alternative medicines can also be helpful. This study aims to assess the prospects of a natural compound, propolis, as a potential nephroprotector against a specific contrast agent, diatrizoate. METHODSIn vivo experiments were performed on 35 male rats in five groups: control, diatrizoate alone, and pretreatments with propolis, NAC, or calpain one hour before diatrizoate administration. Three days later, blood and renal tissue samples were collected and quantitatively processed for determining induced changes in critical biomarkers malondialdehyde (MDA), glutathione (GSH), glutathione per-oxidase (GSH-Px), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and catalase (CAT), as well as serum creatinine and plasma urea.RESULTSDiatrizoate increased creatinine (113%), urea (400%), and MDA (162%) levels and decreased GSH (-71%), SOD (-69%), GSH-Px (-77%), and CAT (-73%) levels. Evaluating the response of each pretreat-ment provided sufficient evidence that propolis was as effective as either NAC or calpain, but con-sistently more prominent in restoring the MDA, GSH, SOD, and GSH-Px levels close to their normal range. This outcome demonstrated the nephroprotective effect of propolis against CIN.CONCLUSIONPropolis protects renal tissue against toxicity, free radicals, and other adverse effects induced by diatri-zoate. This function is most likely exerted through the antioxidant and antitoxic activities of propolis.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAYKARA, M., SİLİCİ, S., ÖZÇELİK, M., GÜLER, O., ERDOĞAN, N., BİLGEN, M. (2015). In vivo nephroprotective efficacy of propolis against contrast-induced nephropathy. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 4, 317–321. https://ajindex.com/articles/208405

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Lindholt JS. Radiocontrast induced nephropathy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2003; 25:296-304. [CrossRef] Heyman SN, Rosen S, Khamaisi M, Idee JM, Rosenberger C. Reactive oxygen species and the pathogenesis of radiocontrast-induced nephrop- athy. Invest Radiol 2010; 45:188-195. [CrossRef] Reddan D, Laville M, Garovic VD. Contrast-in- duced nephropathy and its prevention: What do we really know from evidence-based findings? J Nephrol 2009; 22:333-351.
  2. Doganyigit Z, Kup FO, Silici S, et al. Protective effects of propolis on female rats' histopatholog- ical, biochemical and genotoxic changes during LPS induced endotoxemia. Phytomedicine 2013; 20:632-639. [CrossRef] Silici S, Kutluca S. Chemical composition and an- tibacterial activity of propolis collected by three different races of honeybees in the same region. J Ethnopharmacol 2005; 99:69-73. [CrossRef] Salama SM, AlRashdi AS, Abdulla MA, Hassan- darvish P, Bilgen M. Protective activity of Pandu- ratin A against thioacetamide-induced oxidative damage: demonstration with in vitro experi- ments using WRL-68 liver cell line. BMC Com- plement Altern Med 2013; 13:279. [CrossRef] Placer ZA, Cushman LL, Johnson BC. Estimation of product of lipid peroxidation (malonyl dial- dehyde) in biochemical systems. Anal Biochem 1966; 16:359-364. [CrossRef] Aebi H. Catalase in vitro. Methods Enzymol 1984; 105:121-126.
  3. Sedlak J, Lindsay RH. Estimation of total, pro- tein-bound, and nonprotein sulfhydryl groups in tissue with Ellman's reagent. Anal Biochem 1968; 25:192-205. [CrossRef] Beutler E. Red cell metabolism: a manual of bio- chemical methods. 3rd ed. Orlando: Grune & Stratton, 1984.
  4. Sun Y, Oberley LW, Li Y. A simple method for clinical assay of superoxide dismutase. Clin Chem 1988; 34:497-500.
  5. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol re- agent. J Biol Chem 1951; 193:265-275.
  6. Briguori C, Quintavalle C, De Micco F, Con- dorelli G. Nephrotoxicity of contrast media and protective effects of acetylcysteine. Arch Toxicol 2011; 85:165-173. [CrossRef] Akyol S, Ugurcu V, Altuntas A, et al. Caffeic acid phenethyl ester as a protective agent against nephrotoxicity and/or oxidative kidney damage: a detailed systematic review. ScientificWorld- Journal 2014; 2014:561971. [CrossRef] Campos JF, dos Santos UP, Macorini LF, et al. Antimi- crobial, antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of prop- olis from Melipona orbignyi (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Food Chem Toxicol 2014; 65:374-380. [CrossRef] Ueda