| Literature DB >> 23675142 |
Abstract
The aim of the present work is to study if the GBE 761 (Ginkgo biloba leaves extract) which is beneficial in arterial disease owing to its vasodilator and blood flow acts against the hazards of exposure to electromagnetic field. Here, the GBE was used in two ways either as a protector or for treating the hazards due to exposure to electromagnetic field (EMF). For this purpose, albino rats were grouped into six groups and blood samples were collected from eye vein of the animals from all groups at the end of the experiment. This study concentrates on the cellular membrane and function of the RBCs and focuses on the rheological and physical measurements for blood and hemoglobin molecule because the RBCs membranes play an essential role in the blood flow rate. The changes in its biophysical properties of RBCs membrane will affect its capability for carrying on its metabolic functions. Furthermore, the molecular diameter of hemoglobin, its relaxation time and conductivity were calculated from the dielectric relaxation data. The results indicate that the administration of GBE led to the decrease of RBCs membrane elasticity will lead to the increase of the blood viscosity. Results suggest that GBE may be not of clinical value as anti-oxidant drug for such diseases occurred due to to EMF exposure for long time. It may be conclude that through treatment with those extract some physical measurements like "viscosity of blood, Osmotic fragility to measure the hemolysis rat of RBCs, the radius and the conductivity of hemoglobin molecule" should be considered during the time of treatment. Overall, these leaves (GBE) need more study and there is a recommendation to put the physical parameters parallel to the clinical study.Entities:
Keywords: EMF-viscosity of blood; dielectric properties of hemoglobin; free radicals; ginkgo biloba
Year: 2009 PMID: 23675142 PMCID: PMC3614785
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biomed Sci ISSN: 1550-9702
Illustrate the hematological data from rats for all groups
| Control | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hb (gm/dl) | 12.2 ± 0.01 | 11.65 ± 0.06 | 11.5 ± 0.02 | 11.2 ± 0.02 | 14.8 ± 0.06 | 8.9 ± 0.04 |
| RBC (melion/ | 5.8 ± 0.012 | 4.7 ± 0.05 | 4.14 ± 0.002 | 4.0 ± 0.032 | 5.3 ± 0.05 | 3.2 ± 0.02 |
| TLC (x100/ | 9.2 ± 0.9 | 9.9 ± 0.9 | 8.13 ± 0.003 | 12.5 ± 0.06 | 9.4 ± 0.01 | 12.8 ± 0.02 |
| HCT % | 37.2 ± 1.1 | 41.2 ± 0.09 | 0.345 ± 0.005 | 0.37 ± 0.005 | 0.44 ± 0.006 | 0.37 ± 0.006 |
| MCV (fl) | 61.9 ± 0.01 | 87.04 ± 0.04 | 83.4 ± 0.01 | 92.51 ± 0.009 | 83.3 ± 0.03 | 117.3 ± 0.04 |
| MCH (pg) | 20.9 ± 0.02 | 29.01 ± 0.04 | 27.74 ± 0.03 | 27.7 ± 0.07 | 27.8 ± 0.05 | 27.8 ± 0.01 |
| MCHc (gm/dl) | 33.7 ± 0.01 | 33.3 ± 0.025 | 33.3 ± 0.003 | 30.17 ± 0.0007 | 33.3 ± 0.04 | 23.8 ± 0.02 |
Figure 1The absorption spectra of Hb molecules for all groups.
Peak height (410) for Hb spectrum and absorption ratio (A580 / A540)
| Group |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Normal | 1.71 | 0.6423 |
| Group 1: Exposed (3 mT), 21 days | 1.99 | 0.70143 |
| Group 2: Exposed first to EMF and then treated with GBE | 2.95 | 0.91216 |
| Group 3: Treated first with GBE and then exposed to EMF | 1.24 | 0.9077 |
| Group 4: Treated with GBE through exposure to EMF | 1.34 | 0.8859 |
| Group 5: Treated with the GBE only without exposure to EMF | 1.48 | 0.8859 |
Figure 2The variation of the prcentage of hemolysis for the RBCs as a function of the NaCl% for samples collected from animals from all groups
Figure 3Differentiation curves for all groups
The average value of C% and Wh max for RBCs from each group are given (male rats)
| Group |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Normal | 35% | 0.2 |
| Group 1: Exposed (3 mT), 21 days | 30% | 0.25 |
| Group 2: Exposed first to EMF and then treated with GBE | 35% | 0.15 |
| Group 3: Treated first with GBE and then exposed to EMF | 35% | 0.2 |
| Group 4: Treated with GBE through exposure to EMF | 40% | 0.1 |
| Group 5: Treated with the GBE only without exposure to EMF | 40% | 0.1 |
Figure 4The variation of te blood viscosity as a function of shear rate for all groups.
The average value of (permeability) HCT% and Viscosity (cp) for all groups
| Group |
| Viscosity (cp) |
|---|---|---|
| Normal | 0.36 | 0.0368 |
| Group 1: Exposed (3 mT), 21 days | 0.3918 | 0.0437 |
| Group 2: Exposed first to EMF and then treated with GBE | 0.3456 | 0.0473 |
| Group 3: Treated first with GBE and then exposed to EMF | 0.3705 | 0.0477 |
| Group 4: Treated with GBE through exposure to EMF | 0.44594 | 0.0525 |
| Group 5: Treated with the GBE only without exposure to EMF | 0.3768 | 0.0436 |
Figure 5The variation of the dielectric constant E’ for Hb from all groups as a functional of applied frequency.
Figure 6The variation of the dielectric loss E" of Hb for all groups as a function of frequency
Figure 7The variation of the conductivity of Hb for all groups as a function of frequency
The average values of the relaxation time (τ), radius (r) and conductivity (σ)
| Group | τ (μ SEC) | R(NM) | σ(S/M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 0.79 ± 0.02 | 6.88 ± 0.003 | 0.18 ± 0.006 |
| Group 1: Exposed (3 mT), 21 days | 1.59 ± 0.01 | 13.5 ± 0.015 | 0.231 ± 0.07 |
| Group 2: Exposed first to EMF and then treated with GBE | 0.531 ± 0.02 | 11.9 ± 0.015 | 0.212 ± 0.005 |
| Group 3: Treated first with GBE and then exposed to EMF | 0.717 ± 0.05 | 13.1 ± 0.05 | 0.215 ± 0.01 |
| Group 4: Treated with GBE through exposure to EMF | 1.19 ± 0.003 | 15.6 ± 0.003 | 0.11 ± 0.01 |
| Group 5: Treated with the GBE only without exposure to EMF | 1.46 ± 0.003 | 16.6 ± 0.003 | 0.103 ± 0.01 |