| Literature DB >> 31089418 |
Konstantina P Poulianiti1,2, Aggeliki Karioti1, Antonia Kaltsatou1, Georgia I Mitrou1,3, Yiannis Koutedakis2,4,5, Konstantinos Tepetes6, Grigoris Christodoulidis6, Giannis Giakas2,4, Maria D Maridaki7, Ioannis Stefanidis8, Athanasios Z Jamurtas2,4, Giorgos K Sakkas1,3,4, Christina Karatzaferi1,3,4.
Abstract
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is accompanied by a disturbed redox homeostasis, especially in end-stage patients, which is associated with pathological complications such as anemia, atherosclerosis, and muscle atrophy. However, limited evidence exists about redox disturbances before the end stage of CKD. Moreover, the available redox literature has not yet provided clear associations between circulating and tissue-specific (muscle) oxidative stress levels. The aim of the study was to evaluate commonly used redox status indices in the blood and in two different types of skeletal muscle (psoas, soleus) in the predialysis stages of CKD, using an animal model of renal insufficiency, and to investigate whether blood redox status indices could be reflecting the skeletal muscle redox status. Indices evaluated included reduced glutathione (GSH), oxidized glutathione (GSSG), glutathione reductase (GR), catalase (CAT), total antioxidant capacity (TAC), protein carbonyls (PC), and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS). Results showed that blood GSH was higher in the uremic group compared to the control (17.50 ± 1.73 vs. 12.43 ± 1.01, p = 0.033). In both muscle types, PC levels were higher in the uremic group compared to the control (psoas: 1.086 ± 0.294 vs. 0.596 ± 0.372, soleus: 2.52 ± 0.29 vs. 0.929 ± 0.41, p < 0.05). The soleus had higher levels of TBARS, PC, GSH, CAT, and GR and lower TAC compared to the psoas in both groups. No significant correlations in redox status indices between the blood and skeletal muscles were found. However, in the uremic group, significant correlations between the psoas and soleus muscles in PC, GSSG, and CAT levels emerged, not present in the control. Even in the early stages of CKD, a disturbance in redox homeostasis was observed, which seemed to be muscle type-specific, while blood levels of redox indices did not seem to reflect the intramuscular condition. The above results highlight the need for further research in order to identify the key mechanisms driving the onset and progression of oxidative stress and its detrimental effects on CKD patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31089418 PMCID: PMC6476063 DOI: 10.1155/2019/8219283
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Biochemical and hematological indices in the control and uremic groups.
| Control group ( | 95% confidence interval | Uremic group ( | 95% confidence interval |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower bound | Upper bound | Lower bound | Upper bound | ||||
| Total protein (mg/ml) | 68.59 ± 2.12 | 64.44 | 72.75 | 67.89 ± 2.28 | 63.41 | 72.37 | 0.825 |
| Creatinine (mg/dl) | 1.28 ± 0.15 | 1.11 | 1.45 | 2.45 ± 0.37 | 1.72 | 3.19 | 0.018∗ |
| Urea (mg/dl) | 38 ± 4.3 | 33.43 | 43.24 | 60 ± 11.52 | 37.42 | 82.58 | 0.114 |
| Hemoglobin (mg/dl) | 11.08 ± 0.92 | 10.33 | 11.81 | 9.80 ± 0.30 | 8.22 | 11.77 | 0.368 |
| Hematocrit (%) | 35.24 ± 0.79 | 34.54 | 35.93 | 26.06 ± 1.85 | 22.43 | 29.69 | 0.001∗ |
| RBC (×106/ | 5.10 ± 0.17 | 4.95 | 5.25 | 3.92 ± 0.29 | 3.36 | 4.48 | 0.005∗ |
Data are presented as mean ± SEM. The exact statistical significance value p and the 95% confidence intervals are reported.
Blood redox status indices in the control and uremic groups.
| Blood | Control group ( | 95% confidence interval | Uremic group ( | 95% confidence interval |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower bound | Upper bound | Lower bound | Upper bound | ||||
| Uric acid (mg/dl) | 1.39 ± 0.25 | 0.907 | 1.886 | 1.93 ± 0.38 | 1.18 | 2.67 | 0.263 |
| GSH ( | 12.43 ± 1.01 | 10.448 | 14.412 | 17.50 ± 1.73 | 14.12 | 20.88 | 0.033∗ |
| GSSG ( | 0.027 ± 0.006 | 0.016 | 0.039 | 0.048 ± 0.010 | 0.028 | 0.067 | 0.110 |
| Ratio (GSH/GSSG) | 481 ± 53 | 376.357 | 585.642 | 425.28 ± 61.19 | 305.36 | 545.21 | 0.511 |
| GR (U/g protein) | 176.40 ± 25 | 127.393 | 225.423 | 153.1 ± 15.84 | 122.04 | 184.15 | 0.425 |
| TAC ( | 0.786 ± 0.033 | 0.719 | 0.852 | 0.759 ± 0.041 | 0.679 | 0.838 | 0.611 |
| CAT (U/mg protein) | 342.02 ± 17.69 | 307.35 | 376.68 | 303.63 ± 15.63 | 273.01 | 334.26 | 0.131 |
| PC (nmol/mg protein) | 0.603 ± 0.09 | 0.427 | 0.780 | 0.620 ± 0.066 | 0.491 | 0.748 | 0.888 |
| TBARS (nmol/ml) | 5.12 ± 0.42 | 4.292 | 5.948 | 7.03 ± 0.81 | 5.44 | 8.62 | 0.060 |
Data are presented as mean ± SEM. The exact statistical significance value p and the 95% confidence intervals are reported. GSH: reduced glutathione; GSSG: oxidized glutathione; TAC: total antioxidant capacity; CAT: catalase; PC: protein carbonyls; TBARS: thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, ∗ statistical significance between the control and uremic groups, p < 0.05.
Figure 1Protein carbonyl concentrations for the psoas (control: 0.596 ± 0.372 nmol/mg protein, 95% CI: lower-upper bound: 0.179-1.370; uremic: 1.086 ± 0.294 nmol/mg protein 95% CI: lower-upper bound: 0.474-1.699) and the soleus (control: 0.929 ± 0.41 nmol/mg protein, 95% CI: lower-upper bound: 0.063-1.795; uremic: 2.52 ± 0.29 nmol/mg protein, 95% CI: lower-upper bound: 1.905-3.129) in the control and uremic groups. ∗ depicts significant differences between the control and uremic groups; † depicts significant differences between the psoas and soleus muscles, p < 0.05.
Psoas and soleus muscle biochemical and redox status indices in the control and uremic groups.
| Psoas muscle | Soleus muscle | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | 95% confidence interval | Uremic group ( | 95% confidence interval | Control group ( | 95% confidence interval | Uremic group ( | 95% confidence interval | |||||
| Lower bound | Upper bound | Lower bound | Upper bound | Lower bound | Upper bound | Lower bound | Upper bound | |||||
| Total protein (mg/ml) | 5.753 ± 0.43 | 4.865 | 6.642 | 4.537 ± 0.34 | 3.836 | 5.240 | 3.155 ± 0.478† | 2.161 | 4.148 | 3.29 ± 0.33# | 2.588 | 3.992 |
| GSH ( | 5.539 ± 1.69 | 2.014 | 9.065 | 6.087 ± 1.34 | 3.300 | 8.875 | 8.09 ± 1.89† | 4.155 | 12.039 | 11.41 ± 1.34# | 8.625 | 14.20 |
| GSSG ( | 0.265 ± 0.09 | 0.060 | 0.470 | 0.322 ± 0.07 | 0.160 | 0.484 | 0.331 ± 0.11 | 0.102 | 0.560 | 0.472 ± 0.78 | 0.310 | 0.634 |
| Ratio (GSH/GSSG) | 18.66 ± 11.11 | -4.455 | 41.775 | 25.60 ± 8.787 | 7.326 | 43.874 | 46.62 ± 12.43 | 20.782 | 72.468 | 33.61 ± 8.79 | 15.34 | 51.89 |
| GR (U/g protein) | 10.59 ± 2.25 | 5.912 | 15.273 | 12.72 ± 1.78 | 9.018 | 16.419 | 18.41 ± 2.52† | 13.184 | 23.651 | 16.42 ± 1.78# | 12.724 | 20.125 |
| TAC ( | 0.595 ± 0.06 | 0.458 | 0.732 | 0.519 ± 0.05 | 0.411 | 0.627 | 0.322 ± 0.07† | 0.169 | 0.476 | 0.264 ± 0.05# | 0.155 | 0.372 |
| CAT (U/mg protein) | 6.992 ± 4.71 | -2.799 | 16.785 | 5.721 ± 3.72 | -2.020 | 13.463 | 29.09 ± 5.26† | 18.140 | 40.063 | 23.60 ± 3.72# | 15.863 | 31.346 |
| TBARS (nmol/ml) | 3.179 ± 1.06 | 0.983 | 5.376 | 2.297 ± 0.835 | 0.561 | 4.034 | 6.81 ± 1.18† | 4.350 | 9.262 | 6.25 ± 0.83# | 4.511 | 7.984 |
Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Confidence intervals are reported. TBARS: thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; GSH: reduced glutathione; GSSG: glutathione oxidized; TAC: total antioxidant capacity; CAT: catalase. †Statistical significance between control psoas and control soleus, #statistical significance between uremic psoas and uremic soleus, p < 0.05. ≠It should be noted that muscle analysis refers to n = 5 for the control and n = 8 for the uremic group as a batch of samples became inappropriate for analysis.
Figure 2Correlation of protein carbonyl (PC) concentration (a, b), oxidized glutathione (GSSG) concentration (c, d), and catalase (CAT) activity (e, f) between the psoas and soleus muscles in the control and uremic groups, respectively. Only in the uremic group correlations were statistically significant for (b) PC levels (r = 0.913, p = 0.002), (d) GSSG levels (r = 0.766, p = 0.027), and (f) CAT activity (r = 0.743, p = 0.035).