| Literature DB >> 21738999 |
Danielle Rodrigues Ribeiro Cavalcante1, Paula Santos de Oliveira, Sandro Mota Góis, Andréa Ferreira Soares, Juliana Cordeiro Cardoso, Francine Ferreira Padilha, Ricardo Luiz Cavalcanti de Albuquerque.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Studies have demonstrated that flavonoid compounds of green propolis have antitumoral activity. STUDYEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21738999 PMCID: PMC9443718
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Otorhinolaryngol ISSN: 1808-8686
Distribution of experimental and control groups
| GROUPS | PRODUCT PAINTED ON THE RAT TONGUE | PRODUCT ADMINISTERED BY GAVAGEM |
|---|---|---|
| CTR1 | Distilled water | Distilled water 1 mL + 2 drops of 2% tween 80 |
| CTR2 | Distilled water | Hydroalcoholic extract of green propolis - 100 mg/kg |
| TUM1 | 0.5% DMBA | Distilled water 3 mL |
| TUM2 | 0.5% DMBA | 2% tween 80 3 mL |
| PROP1 | 0.5% DMBA | Hydroalcoholic extract of green propolis - 100 mg/kg |
| PROP2 | 0.5% DMBA | Hydroalcoholic extract of green propolis - 200 mg/kg |
| PROP3 | 0.5% DMBA | Hydroalcoholic extract of green propolis - 300 mg/kg |
Analysis of mean scores of epithelial histological changes and the classification according to the WHO and the binary system
| GROUPS | Epithelial histological changes | Classification of epithelial changes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Architectural (Mean ±SD) | Cytological (Mean ±SD) | Affected epithelial layers | Binary system | WHO system | |
| CTR1 | 1.5 ±0.22 a | 0 a | Basal | BR | ND |
| CTR2 | 1.75 ±1.50 a | 0 a | Basal | BR | ND |
| TUM1 | 4.83 ±0.40 b | 2.33 ±1.36 b | Middle squamous | AR | DM |
| TUM2 | 4.50 ±1.51 b | 3.16 ±2.13 b | Middle squamous | AR | DM |
| PROP1 | 4.0 ±1.22 b | 0.80 ±0.30 a | Basal/Parabasal | AR | DL |
| PROP2 | 2.66 ±1.03 a | 0.33 ±0.51 a | Basal/Parabasal | BR | DL |
| PROP3 | 2.0 ±0.63 a | 0.50 ±0.22 a | Basal/Parabasal | BR | DL |
SD - standard deviation
Epithelium with non-dysplasic alterations (ND); mild dysplasia (DL); moderate dysplasia (DM); severe dysplasia (DI); low risk (BR); high risk (AR);
Different letters in the same column are statistically different values (p<0.05).
only in focal areas.
Figure 1HE stained histological sections of the mucosal lining epithelium of the border of the tongue in experimental animals. (a) and (b) Negative control groups (CTR1 and CTR2) showing a normal epithelium. (c) Group TUM1 showing a hyperkeratinized epithelium (HQ) with dysplasia; note the droplet-shaped entrapped papillae (pg). (d) Group TUM1 showing moderate cell pleomorphism and hyperchromatic vell nuclei, evident basilar hyperplasia (hp) and basal mitosis (light arrow) and suprabasal mitosis (dark arrows). (e) Group TUM2 showing epithelium with dysplasia extending to the middle third, similar to TUM1. (f) Group PROP1 showing nuclear hyperchromatism in epithelial cells, highlighting droplet-shaped irregular papillae (Frame). (g) Group PROP2 showing rare and focal atypical findings expressed as discreet droplet-shaped papillae (pg) and mild nuclear hyperchromatism. (h) Group PROP3 showing only mildly disarrayed architecture of epithelial papillae and mildly hyperchromatic cell nuclei.