| Literature DB >> 24402234 |
Kimio Watanabe1, Kana Okada2, Ryoji Fukabori3, Yoshimitsu Hayashi4, Koichi Asahi5, Hiroyuki Terawaki6, Kazuto Kobayashi7, Tsuyoshi Watanabe8, Masaaki Nakayama9.
Abstract
Methylglyoxal (MG), one of the uremic toxins, is a highly reactive alpha-dicarbonyl compound. Recent clinical studies have demonstrated the close associations of cognitive impairment (CI) with plasma MG levels and presence of kidney dysfunction. Therefore, the present study aims to examine whether MG is a direct causative substance for CI development. Eight-week-old male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were divided into two groups: control (n = 9) and MG group (n = 10; 0.5% MG in drinking water), and fed a normal diet for 12 months. Cognitive function was evaluated by two behavioral tests (object exploration test and radial-arm maze test) in early (4-6 months of age) and late phase (7-12 months of age). Serum MG was significantly elevated in the MG group (495.8 ± 38.1 vs. 244.8 ± 28.2 nM; p < 0.001) at the end of study. The groups did not differ in cognitive function during the course of study. No time-course differences were found in oxidative stress markers between the two groups, while, antioxidants such as glutathione peroxidase and superoxide dismutase activities were significantly increased in the MG group compared to the control. Long-term MG administration to rats with normal kidney function did not cause CI. A counter-balanced activation of the systemic anti-oxidant system may offset the toxicity of MG in this model. Pathogenetic significance of MG for CI requires further investigation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24402234 PMCID: PMC3920260 DOI: 10.3390/toxins6010254
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 4.546
Timeline chart of the experiments and physical findings.
| Phase | Age in weeks (W) | MG exposure (W) | Behavior test | Urine & blood test | Mean BP (mmHg) | Body weight (g) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control ( | MG ( | Control ( | MG ( | |||||||
| 8 | START | - | - | 101 ± 2.1 | 105 ± 2.0 | 0.221 | 281 ± 3.3 | 277 ± 3.8 | 0.527 | |
| 16 | +8 | - | Urine Test (1) | 99.0 ± 4.0 | 99.0 ± 3.3 | 0.935 | 506 ± 10.5 | 487 ± 10.7 | 0.238 | |
| 16 | +8 | Object exploration Test (1) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| 20 ~ 23 | +12~+15 | Radial-arm Maze Test (1) | - | 82.0 ± 2.1 | 79.7 ± 3.4 | 0.594 | 533 ± 10.3 | 509 ± 11.9 | 0.159 | |
| 31 | +23 | Object exploration Test (2) | - | - | - | - | 569 ± 11.3 | 539 ± 12.8 | 0.116 | |
| 42 ~ 44 | +34~+36 | Radial-arm Maze Test (2) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| 45 | +37 | - | Urine Test (2) | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| 47 | +39 | (Sacrificed) | Blood Test | 93.4 ± 3.3 | 94.2 ± 4.5 | 0.674 | 603 ± 14.2 | 566 ± 14.5 | 0.083 | |
Notes: MG: Methylglyoxal; BP: blood pressure.
Renal function and oxidative stress marker tested in each phase.
| Parameters | Phase I | Phase II | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control ( | MG ( | Control ( | MG ( | |||
| Uric Protein (g/gCrea) | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.5 | 0.068 | 3.0 ± 0.7 | 1.8 ± 0.6 | 0.201 |
| Urinary 8-OHdG (ng/day) | 252.2 ± 21.1 | 218.9 ± 14.5 | 0.356 | 211.9 ± 12.0 | 205.0 ± 16.3 | 0.549 |
| Urinary MDA (nmol/day) | 106.8 ± 9.2 | 101.3 ± 12.6 | 0.733 | 27.0 ± 4.9 | 27.7 ± 4.8 | 0.927 |
| BUN (mg/dL) | - | - | - | 20.7 ± 0.6 | 21.9 ± 0.8 | 0.241 |
| Serum Creatinine (mg/dL) | - | - | - | 0.30 ± 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.02 | 0.210 |
| Plasma Glucose (mg/dL) | - | - | - | 236.3 ± 7.1 | 221.9 ± 6.4 | 0.149 |
| Serum MG (nM) | - | - | - | 244.8 ± 28.2 | 495.8 ± 38.1 | <0.001 |
| Plasma MDA (µM) | - | - | - | 0.16 ± 0.04 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.447 |
| Plasma AGT (ng/mL) | - | - | - | 3.2 ± 0.3 | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 0.014 |
| Urinary AGT (ng/day) | 29.3 ± 6.5 | 16.3 ± 6.3 | 0.034 | |||
| Kidney GPx (mU/mg) | - | - | - | 3.6 ± 0.4 | 5.1 ± 0.4 | 0.036 |
| Kidney SOD (U/mL/mg) | - | - | - | 3.7 ± 0.9 | 6.3 ± 0.9 | 0.069 |
Figure 1Effect of methylglyoxal (MG) on cognition as tested by the open field test (Object exploration test). Groups of rats were treated with tap water (Control, n = 9) or methylglyoxal (MG, 0.5% MG solution as drinking water, n = 10) for 39 weeks. Spatial memory was tested at 16 weeks (Phase I) and 31 weeks (Phase II) of age during treatment by an open field test as described in the methods section. (a) Locomotion number through all sessions of object exploration test; (b) non-displaced vs. displaced objects to indicate spatial recognition in object exploration test; (c) contact with familiar and new objects in object exploration test. * p < 0.05.
Figure 2Effect of methylglyoxal (MG) on cognition as tested by the radial-arm maze test. Spatial reference and spatial working memory were tested between 20 and 23 weeks of age (Phase I), and 42 and 44 weeks (Phase II) of age during testing with the radial-arm maze test as described in the methods section. (a) The number of total errors in the radial-arm maze test; (b) mean running time in the radial-arm maze test; (c) number of reference memory errors in the radial-arm maze test; (d) number of working memory errors in the radial-arm maze test; and (e) number of reference and working memory errors in the radial-arm maze test. * p < 0.05.
Figure 3Histological findings at sacrifice (47 weeks of age) in each group. (a) Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained brain sections in the hippocampus region. Neuronal cell damage was not detected in the MG group; (b) Caspase-3 staining in the hippocampus region. Apoptotic cells could not be detected in either of the two groups.
Figure 4(A) Object exploration test. We used the experimental device shown in Figure 4A. We investigated the exploration of five objects in an open field, habituation of locomotion and object investigation, and response to spatial and non-spatial change of rats in each phase. (a) The open field and the objects during Sessions 2–4 (habituation); (b) The spatial change situation involving the displacement of two objects in Sessions 5 and 6; (c) Only one object change situation in Session 7; (B) The radial-arm maze test. Cereal as a reward was placed in four of the eight arms. The reward arms were set through the protocol and were different for each animal. We used the experimental device in Figure 4B. We investigated the total number of errors and mean running time of all rats through the sessions in each phase.