| Literature DB >> 25622257 |
Wei Li1, Xin-Nan Qu2, Ye Han3, Si-Wen Zheng4, Jia Wang5, Ying-Ping Wang6.
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the protective effect of 5-hydroxymethyl-2-furfural (5-HMF) on acute alcohol-induced liver oxidative injury in mice. 5-HMF, a maillard reaction product, was isolated from the fruits of Schisandra chinensis for animal experiments. Experimental ICR mice were pretreated with different doses of 5-HMF (7.5, 15, and 30 mg/kg) for seven days by gavage feeding. Biochemical markers and enzymatic antioxidants from serum and liver tissue were examined. Our results showed that the activities of ALT (alanine aminotransferase), AST (aspartate transaminase), TC (total cholesterol), TG (triglyceride), L-DLC (low density lipoprotein) in serum and the levels of MDA (malondialdehyde) in liver tissue, decreased significantly (p < 0.05) in the 5-HMF-treated group compared with the alcohol group. On the contrary, enzymatic antioxidants CAT (catalase), GSH-Px (glutathione peroxidase), and GSH SOD (superoxide dismutase) were markedly elevated in liver tissue treated with 5-HMF (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the hepatic levels of pro-inflammatory response marker tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-1β (IL-1β) were significantly suppressed (p < 0.05). Histopathological examination revealed that 5-HMF (30 mg/kg) pretreatment noticeably prevented alcohol-induced hepatocyte apoptosis and fatty degeneration. It is suggested that the hepatoprotective effects exhibited by 5-HMF on alcohol-induced liver oxidative injury may be due to its potent antioxidant properties.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25622257 PMCID: PMC4346845 DOI: 10.3390/ijms16022446
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1The production pathway of 5-HMF from fructose.
Figure 2HPLC chromatograms of 5-HMF from the fruits of S. chinensis. Reference standard (A) and sample (B).
Effects of 5-HMF on body weight and organ index in mice.
| Group | Dosage (mg/kg) | Initial Wts (g) | Final Wts (g) | Liver Index (×100, mg·g−1) | Spleen Index (×100, mg·g−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | — | 22.3 ± 3.1 | 27.5 ± 2.9 | 4.31 ± 0.14 | 0.32 ± 0.05 |
| Alcohol | — | 23.3 ± 2.6 | 28.2 ± 3.1 | 4.74 ± 0.14 * | 0.42 ± 0.03 * |
| Huganpian | 350 | 22.6 ± 2.1 | 29.3 ± 2.7 | 4.38 ± 0.14 # | 0.36 ± 0.04 # |
| 5-HMF | 7.5 | 23.1 ± 2.9 | 27.8 ± 3.3 | 4.31 ± 0.54 | 0.40 ± 0.06 |
| 15 | 22.8 ± 2.6 | 28.6 ± 3.4 | 4.48 ± 0.19 # | 0.37 ± 0.04 # | |
| 30 | 23.2 ± 2.7 | 29.1 ± 3.2 | 4.51 ± 0.14 # | 0.35 ± 0.03 # |
Values represent the mean ± S.D., n = 8; * p < 0.05 vs. control group; # p < 0.05 vs. alcohol group; Wts: weights.
Effects of 5-HMF on serum ALT, AST, TC, TG and L-DLC levels in mice.
| Group | Dosage (mg/kg) | ALT (U/L) | AST (U/L) | TC (mM) | TG (mM) | L-DLC (mM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | — | 3.91 ± 0.63 | 12.62 ± 0.78 | 2.24 ± 0.23 | 0.38 ± 0.10 | 0.75 ± 0.15 |
| Alcohol | — | 5.32 ± 0.75 * | 28.22 ± 0.71 * | 3.77 ± 0.32 * | 2.15 ± 0.28 * | 1.77 ± 0.31 * |
| Huganpian | 350 | 4.02 ± 0.44 # | 21.25 ± 0.72 # | 3.54 ± 0.28 # | 0.51 ± 0.19 # | 1.36 ± 0.21 # |
| 5-HMF | 12.5 | 4.25 ± 0.24 # | 24.23 ± 0.55 # | 3.32 ± 0.26 # | 1.29 ± 0.15 # | 1.55 ± 0.32 # |
| 25 | 4.21 ± 0.22 # | 23.59 ± 0.64 # | 3.12 ± 0.22 # | 1.12 ± 0.23 # | 1.52 ± 0.26 # | |
| 50 | 4.01 ± 1.02 # | 22.45 ± 0.73 # | 2.98 ± 0.33 # | 0.80 ± 0.11 # | 1.43 ± 0.21 # |
Values represent the mean ± S.D. (n = 8); * p < 0.05 vs. control group; # p < 0.05 vs. alcohol group.
Figure 3Effects of 5-HMF on hepatic CAT (A); GSH-Px (B); SOD (C) and MDA (D) activities in mice. Data represent the mean ± S.D. (n = 8); Significant differences were indicated by ※ p < 0.05 vs. control group. # p < 0.05 vs. alcohol group.
Figure 4Effects of 5-HMF on hepatic TNF-α (A) and IL-1β (B) in mice. Data represent the mean ± S.D. n = 8; Significant differences were indicated by ※ p < 0.05 vs. control group. # p < 0.05 vs. alcohol group.
Figure 5Photomicrographs of liver sections obtained from control group (A); alcohol group (B); positive control group (C) (Huganpian, 350 mg/kg), and 5-HMF (D) (30 mg/kg) (magnification, all 100×).
Pathological changes in the liver and Ridit analysis.
| Groups | Dosage (mg/kg) | Steatosis Grade | Ridit Analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||||
| Control | — | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.23 |
| Alcohol | — | 8 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0.78 * |
| Huganpian | 350 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.41 |
| 5-HMF | 7.5 | 8 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.59 # |
| 15 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.51 # | |
| 30 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.49 # | |
The steatosis stages were classed on the basis of the H&E staining of liver sections. The data were analyzed by Ridit analysis. * p < 0.05 vs. control group, # p < 0.05 vs. alcohol group. Grading standard: 0 = no steatosis, 1 = little steatosis (no more than 1/4), 2 = mild steatosis, (no more than 1/2), 3 = moderate steatosis (no more than 3/4) and 4 = severe steatosis (almost 100%).