| Literature DB >> 23724298 |
Lucindo Quintans-Júnior1, José C F Moreira, Matheus A B Pasquali, Soheyla M S Rabie, André S Pires, Rafael Schröder, Thallita K Rabelo, João P A Santos, Pollyana S S Lima, Sócrates C H Cavalcanti, Adriano A S Araújo, Jullyana S S Quintans, Daniel P Gelain.
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate antinocicpetive and redox properties of the monoterpenes (+)-camphene, p-cymene, and geranyl acetate in in vivo and in vitro experimental models. Methods. Evaluation of the in vitro antioxidant activity of (+)-camphene, p-cymene, and geranyl acetate using different free radical-generating systems and evaluation of antinociceptive actions by acetic acid-induced writhing and formalin-induced nociception tests in mice. Results. p-Cymene has the strongest antinociceptive effect, but (+)-camphene and geranyl acetate also present significant activity at high doses (200 mg/kg). (+)-Camphene had the strongest antioxidant effect in vitro at TBARS and TRAP/TAR assays and also had the highest scavenging activities against different free radicals, such as hydroxyl and superoxide radicals. Sodium nitroprussiate-derived NO production was enhanced by (+)-camphene. Geranyl acetate and p-cymene also presented some antioxidant effects, but with a varying profile according the free radical-generating system studied. Conclusion. (+)-Camphene, p-cymene, and geranyl acetate may present pharmacological properties related to inflammation and pain-related processes, being potentially useful for development of new therapeutic strategies, with limited possibilities for p-cymene and geranyl acetate.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23724298 PMCID: PMC3658412 DOI: 10.1155/2013/459530
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Toxicol ISSN: 2090-6188
Figure 1Chemical structure of (+)-camphene, p-cymene, and geranyl acetate.
Effect of (+)-camphene, p-cymene, geranyl acetate, or aspirin on writhing induced by acetic acid and formalin-induced nociception tests.
| Treatment | Dose (mg/kg) | Writhing test | Formalin test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of writhingsa | 0–5 mina | 15–30 mina | ||
| Vehicle | — | 27.8 ± 3.1 | 85.7 ± 8.8 | 113.8 ± 28.6 |
| (+)-Camphene | 50 | 22.5 ± 5.3 | 76.1 ± 9.6 | 107.1 ± 11.2 |
| (+)-Camphene | 100 | 25.1 ± 4.7 | 81.7 ± 8.3 | 68.3 ± 14.7b |
| (+)-Camphene | 200 | 15.7 ± 4.4c | 72.4 ± 12.8 | 44.3 ± 11.9c |
|
| 50 | 8.9 ± 5.9c | 43.5 ± 7.1b,&,# | 49.4 ± 9.5c |
|
| 100 | 4.1 ± 0.9d,&,# | 24.0 ± 8.9d,&,# | 33.5 ± 10.0d |
|
| 200 | 1.3 ± 0.5d,&,# | 11.9 ± 5.1d,&,# | 25.4 ± 7.4d,&,# |
| Geranyl acetate | 50 | 23.9 ± 5.7 | 77.0 ± 11.4 | 98.7 ± 16.6 |
| Geranyl acetate | 100 | 13.0 ± 4.8c | 65.9 ± 13.2 | 55.4 ± 9.1c |
| Geranyl acetate | 200 | 15.7 ± 3.6c | 79.9 ± 10.3 | 59.3 ± 11.2c |
| Aspirin | 200 | 5.1 ± 3.2d | 78.3 ± 17.8 | 27.5 ± 11.1d |
n = 8, per group.
aValues represent mean ± SEM.
b P < 0.05, c P < 0.01 or d P < 0.001 (one-way ANOVA and Turkey's post hoc test), significantly different from control group.
& P < 0.05 or P < 0.01 (one-way ANOVA and Turkey's post hoc test), significantly different from (+)-camphene-treated group.
# P < 0.05 or P < 0.01 (one-way ANOVA and Turkey's post hoc test), significantly different from geranyl acetate-treated group.
Figure 2Time (s) on the rotarod observed in mice after i.p. treatments. The Statistical differences versus vehicle-treated mice group were calculated using ANOVA, followed by Tukey's test (n = 8, per group), *P < 0.001.
Figure 3In vitro evaluation of the redox profile of (+)-camphene. (a) TBARS in vitro assay for lipid peroxidation assessment. (b) TRAP and (c) TAR values. (d) Hydroxyl radical-scavenging activity assay. (e) Nitric oxide (NO) scavenging assay. (f) Superoxide dismutase-like (SOD-like) activity. (g) Catalase-like (CAT-like) activity. Vehicle was DMSO 0.1% in all tests; in NO-scavenging activity, SOD-like and CAT-like activity tests, control is DMSO 0.1% alone. Bars represent mean ± SEM values. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ***P < 0.0001 (1-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post-hoc test).
Figure 4In vitro evaluation of the redox profile of geranyl acetate. (a) TBARS in vitro assay for lipid peroxidation assessment. (b) TRAP and (c) TAR values. (d) Hydroxyl radical-scavenging activity assay. (e) Nitric oxide (NO) scavenging assay. (f) Superoxide dismutase-like (SOD-like) activity. (g) Catalase-like (CAT-like) activity. Vehicle was DMSO 0.5% in all tests; in NO-scavenging activity, SOD-like, and CAT-like activity tests, control is DMSO 0.5% alone. Bars represent mean ± SEM values. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ***P < 0.0001 (1-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post-hoc test).
Figure 5In vitro evaluation of the redox profile of p-cymene. (a) TBARS in vitro assay for lipid peroxidation assessment. (b) TRAP and (c) TAR values. (d) Hydroxyl radical-scavenging activity assay. (e) Nitric oxide (NO) scavenging assay. (f) Superoxide dismutase-like (SOD-like) activity. (g) Catalase-like (CAT-like) activity. Vehicle was DMSO 0.1% in all tests; in NO-scavenging activity, SOD-like and CAT-like activity tests, control is DMSO 0.1% alone. Bars represent mean ± SEM values. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ***P < 0.0001 (1-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post-hoc test).