AIM:To determine whether recombinant human epidermal growth factor (rhEGF) can protect gastric mucosa against ethanol induced injury in rats. METHOD: Fifty-four SD rats weighing 200g-500g each were divided into six groups after fasting for 24 hours.Three groups received different doses of oral rhEGF (30, 60 and 120&mgr;gcenter dotkg(-1)center dotd(-1)), one group was given cimetidine,one subcutaneous rhEGF (rhEGF IV) and one received saline as control. RESULTS: Acute gastric dilatation developed in the control and cimetidine groups and bloody gastric juice was found in the control group. The ulcer index was 58 in control group, 53 in rhEGF I, 46 in rhEGF II (P < 0.01), 11 in rhEGFIII (P < 0.01), 19 in rhEGF IV (P < 0.01), and 39 in cimetidine group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: rhEGF protected gastric mucosa against ethanol induced damage. The effect was dose-dependent with blood levels of epidermal growth factor (EGF) at a dosage range of 60&mgr;gcenter dotkg(-1)center dotd(-1)-120&mgr;gcenter dot kg(-1)center dotd(-1). It was more effective by injection than via oral route at the same dosage.
AIM:To determine whether recombinant humanepidermal growth factor (rhEGF) can protect gastric mucosa against ethanol induced injury in rats. METHOD: Fifty-four SD rats weighing 200g-500g each were divided into six groups after fasting for 24 hours.Three groups received different doses of oral rhEGF (30, 60 and 120&mgr;gcenter dotkg(-1)center dotd(-1)), one group was given cimetidine,one subcutaneous rhEGF (rhEGF IV) and one received saline as control. RESULTS: Acute gastric dilatation developed in the control and cimetidine groups and bloody gastric juice was found in the control group. The ulcer index was 58 in control group, 53 in rhEGF I, 46 in rhEGF II (P < 0.01), 11 in rhEGFIII (P < 0.01), 19 in rhEGF IV (P < 0.01), and 39 in cimetidine group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: rhEGF protected gastric mucosa against ethanol induced damage. The effect was dose-dependent with blood levels of epidermal growth factor (EGF) at a dosage range of 60&mgr;gcenter dotkg(-1)center dotd(-1)-120&mgr;gcenter dot kg(-1)center dotd(-1). It was more effective by injection than via oral route at the same dosage.