| Literature DB >> 28868268 |
Maurício Mercaldi Pastrelo1, Carla Caroline Dias Ribeiro2, Joselmo Willamys Duarte1, Andréa Pitelli Bioago Gollücke3, Ricardo Artigiani-Neto1, Daniel Araki Ribeiro1,3, Sender Jankiel Miszputen2, Celina Tizuko Fujiyama Oshima1, Ana Paula Ribeiro Paiotti1,2.
Abstract
Reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS/RNS) play a crucial role in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) exacerbating the chronic inflammatory process. Endogenous and diet antioxidants can neutralize these compounds. The apple is widely consumed, with several antioxidant activity compounds. The present study evaluated the effects of concentrated apple extract (CAE) in acetic acid induced colitis. 29 Wistar male rats were randomized into 5 groups. G1-Sham/saline solution, G2-CAE/control, G3-acetic acid/control, G4-curative- CAE treatment and G5-preventive-CAE treatment. Eight days later, the animals were euthanized and the colonic segment resected for macroscopic and histological analysis. Gene expression was evaluated for inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), catalase and copper and zinc superoxide dismutase (CuZnSOD) by quantitative real time PCR, while protein expression was assessed for iNOS, COX-2 and 8-hydroxy-20-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) via immunohistochemistry. The groups G3, G4 and G5 had weight loss, while G5 had weight increase at the end of the experiment. The treatment with CAE reduced the macroscopic and microscopic injury, decreased iNOS mRNA expression and increased CuZnSOD mRNA expression in animals with induced acetic acid-colitis. The findings of the present study suggest that CAE treatment exerts an antioxidant role by downregulating iNOS and upregulating CuZnSOD.Entities:
Keywords: CuZnSOD; Experimental colitis; antioxidant; apple extract; iNOS
Year: 2017 PMID: 28868268 PMCID: PMC5568191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Cell Med ISSN: 2251-9637
Fig. 1.Clinical evolution of the weight in all groups
Macroscopic and histological damages
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| G1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 |
| G2 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 |
| G3 | 7.6 | 1.6 | 20.5 | 1.0 |
| G4 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 18.1 | 1.5 |
| G5 | 3.6 | 0.4 | 17.0 | 0.4 |
Data are presented as mean± standard errors.
*, **: mean value was significantly different
P< 0.001
P< 0.05) when compared with G3 (AA non treated colitis group).
Fig. 2Macroscopic evaluation of the colon. A) G1- sham and B) G2 – CAE control groups: colon without morphological alterations; C) G3 – AA-induced colitis group: severe shortening and thickening of the colon, major ulcers and necrosis; D) G4 – curative CAE treatment and E) G5 – preventive CAE treatment: moderate thickening of the colon and minor ulcerations
Fig. 3.Photomicrograph of the hematoxylin and eosin-stained of colonic sections in the different groups. A) G1 - sham and B) G2 – CAE control groups: normal cellular architecture of the colon; C) G3 – AA-induced colitis group, D) G4 – curative CAE treatment and E) G5 – preventive CAE treatment: intense inflammatory infiltrate, ulceration and distortion of cellular architecture with 40X magnification. F) Score of histopathological analysis (* p<0.01 G3, G4 e G5 vs G1, ** p<0.01 G3, G4 e G5 vs G2, # p<0.05 G5 vs G3) – ANOVA -Tukey
iNOS, COX-2, Catalase and CuZnSOD gene expression.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| G1 | 3.39±1.41 | 0.81±0.31 | 3.70±1.05 | 2.90±0.51 |
| G2 | 4.15±0.66 | 0.98±0.18 | 4.61±1.13 | 4.12±0.55 |
| G3 | 10.85±1.63 | 5.22±1.72 | 4.31±1.65 | 3.33±0.80 |
| G4 | 2.96±0.88[ | 2.19±0.93 | 4.75±0.35 | 5.65±0.32[ |
| G5 | 7.15±1.75 | 4.59±0.64 | 4.86±0.53 | 4.10±0.13 |
Data are presented as mean± standard errors.
: mean value was significantly different (ǂP<0.01/ #P<0.05) when compared with G3 (AA non treated colitis group).
iNOS, COX-2 and 8-OHdG immunolocalization
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| G1 | 5.6±1.0 | 0.0±0.0 | 2.6±0.9 | 0.0±0.0 | 214.4±82.43 |
| G2 | 5.0±0.6 | 0.0±0.0 | 2.4±1.1 | 0.0±0.0 | 132.6±47.92 |
| G3 | 5.0±0.6 | 2.6±0.2 | 3.6±0.9 | 6.6±0.6 | 867.0±32.22 |
| G4 | 2.2±1.0 | 1.6±0.2 | 1.8±1.1 | 4.0±0.8 | 776.3±116.5 |
| G5 | 3.7±1.4 | 0.8±0.5 | 2.8±1.3 | 5.8±1.1 | 778.5±78.16 |
Data are presented as mean± standard errors.
number of positive staining cells per 1000 total nucleus counted on the upper region of the crypt.
Fig. 4Cytoplasmic immunostaining of iNOS and COX-2 in epithelial cells. A) G1 – Sham control group: negative control; B) G3 – AA-induced colitis control group, C) G4 – curative CAE treatment and D) G5 – preventive CAE treatment: intense staining of iNOS; E) G2 – CAE control group: weak staining of COX-2; F) G3 – AA-induced colitis control group – intense staining of COX-2, G) G4 – curative CAE treatment: moderate staining of COX-2 and H) G5 – preventive CAE treatment: weak staining of COX-2. 400X magnification
Fig. 5Cytoplasmic immunostaining of iNOS and COX-2 in inflammatory infiltrate cells. A) G1 – Sham control group: as negative control, without ulcerated area; B) G3 – AA-induced colitis control group – intense staining of iNOS, C) G4 – curative CAE treatment: moderate staining of iNOS and D) G5 - preventive CAE treatment: weak staining of iNOS; E) G2 – CAE control group: as negative control, without ulcerated area; F) G3 – AA-induced colitis control group – intense staining of COX-2, G) G4 – curative CAE treatment and H) G5 – preventive CAE treatment: moderate staining of COX-2. 100X and 400X magnification
Fig. 6Nuclear immunostaining of 8-OHdG in epithelial cells. A) G2 – CAE control group: weak staining; B) G3 –AA-induced colitis control group; C) G4 – curative CAE treatment and D) G5 - preventive CAE treatment: intense staining. 400X magnification