| Literature DB >> 30728344 |
Xingxing Ma1, Zhanquan Jiao2, Yanhong Liu3, Jun Chen1, Guangping Li1, Tong Liu1, Gary Tse4,5, Ruyu Yuan1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Contrast-induced acute kidney injury is an important clinical problem, yet its pathogenic mechanisms are incompletely understood. In this study we explored the potential beneficial effects of probucol as treatment of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in diabetic rats. MATERIAL AND METHODS Rats were divided into 3 groups: i) diabetic control, ii) diabetic with contrast, and iii) probucol treatment groups. Probucol was administered by gavage and the contrast diatrizoate (60%) was injected via femoral vein. After 24 h, the rats were sacrificed and samples were taken to measure biochemical indicators. Pathological damage of renal tubules was evaluated by HE staining. Expression of Bcl-2, Bax, p-ERKs, and p-JNK proteins in the kidneys was examined by Western blotting, whereas expression level of caspase-3 in kidneys was detected by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS Compared to the probucol treatment group, the diabetes with contrast group showed higher serum creatinine and lower creatinine clearance. The pathological changes of kidneys in the probucol treatment group were improved compared with the contrast group. Moreover, Western blot analyses revealed that use of contrast agent led to lower p-ERK1/2, higher p-JNK, lower Bcl-2, and higher Bax levels, which were reversed by probucol. Finally, immunohistochemical findings revealed higher caspase-3 after contrast use, which was partially reversed by probucol. CONCLUSIONS Probucol exerts protective effects on contrast-induced acute kidney injury in diabetic rats by inhibition of renal cell apoptosis. This is achieved by reducing mitochondrial caspase-3 expression through increasing and decreasing the expression of the upstream mediators p-ERK1/2 and p-JNK, respectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30728344 PMCID: PMC6375284 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.913106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Comparison of blood glucose, body weight, and urine volume in each group (χ̄±s).
| Diabetes control group (n=6) | Diabetes with contrast group (n=6) | Probucol treatment group (n=6) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| BG (mmol/L) | |||
| Before injection | 3.81±0.27 | 3.84±0.36 | 3.83±0.39 |
| 7 days | 21.44±2.88 | 22.17±2.94 | 22.23±1.93 |
| 8 weeks | 22.23±3.68 | 23.02±2.19 | 22.82±2.56 |
| 10 weeks | 22.97±2.19 | 23.48±3.12 | 23.10±2.48 |
| BW (g) | 302.21±45.87 | 298.54±48.75 | 289.16±48.54 |
| V (ml/24h) | 235.21±30.62 | 224.48±35.12 | 233.56±33.89 |
BG – blood glucose level; BW – body weights; V – urine volume. The blood glucose level was much greater than 16.7 mmol/L at 1, 8, and 10 weeks after STZ injection and there was no significant difference in blood glucose among groups at 10 weeks. Moreover, there was no significant difference in body weight and urine volume between rats in each group.
Renal function parameters in the study groups (χ̄±s)
| Diabetes control group (n=6) | Diabetes with contrast group (n=6) | Probucol treatment group (n=6) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cr (μmol/L) | 71.52±7.03 | 103.89±9.01 | 88.10±8.78 |
| CrCl (ml/min) | 2.60±0.54 | 1.49±0.33 | 2.14±0.49 |
Cr – serum creatinine; CrCl – creatinine clearance rate.
P<0.05, vs. diabetes control group;
P<0.05, vs. diabetes with contrast group.
Figure 1(A–D) HE staining evaluated renal tubular damage in each group. The average renal tubular injury score under each field of view was calculated as the renal tubular injury score of the group. # P<0.05, vs. diabetes control group; * P<0.05, vs. diabetes with contrast group.
Figure 2Western blot electrophoresis for p-ERK1/2 (A) and p-JNK (B) in each group. Relative band intensity values are shown in C. # P<0.05, compared to the diabetes control group; * P<0.05, compared to the diabetes with contrast group.
Figure 3Western blot electrophoresis for Bcl-2 (A) and Bax (B). Relative band intensity values are shown in C. # P<0.05, compared to the diabetes control group; * P<0.05, compared to the diabetes with contrast group.
Figure 4Immunohistochemistry findings of caspase-3 for each group (magnification at 400×) (A–C). Integrated optical density values are shown in D. # P<0.05, compared to the diabetes control group; * P<0.05, compared to the diabetes with contrast group.
Figure 5The potential mechanism of apoptosis induced by iodinated contrast media and the effect of probucol on contrast-induced nephropathy.