| Literature DB >> 32059471 |
Anca Oana Docea1, Daniela Calina2, Ana Maria Buga3, Ovidiu Zlatian4, M M B Paoliello5,6, George Dan Mogosanu7, Costin Teodor Streba8, Elena Leocadia Popescu9, Alexandra Elena Stoica10, Alexandra Catalina Bîrcă10, Bogdan Ștefan Vasile10, Alexandru Mihai Grumezescu10, Laurentiu Mogoanta11.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the subacute effect of two types of Ag-NPs(EG-AgNPs and PVP-EG-AgNPs) on antioxidant/pro-oxidant balance in rats. Seventy Wistar rats (35 males and 35 females) were divided in 7 groups and intraperitoneally exposed for 28 days to 0, 1, 2 and 4 mg/kg bw/day EG-Ag-NPs and 1, 2 and 4 mg/kg bw/day PVP- EG-Ag-NPs. After 28 days, the blood was collected, and the total antioxidant capacity (TAC), thiobarbituric reactive species (TBARS),protein carbonyl (PROTC) levels, reduced glutathione (GSH) levels and catalase (CAT) activity were determined. EG-Ag-NPs determined protective antioxidant effects in a dose-dependent manner. The exposure to the 4 mg/kg bw/day EG-Ag-NPs determines both in males and females a significant increase in TAC and CAT and a significant decrease in TBARS and PROTC only in females. The PVP-EG-AgNPs showed a different trend compared to EG-AgNPs. At 4 mg/kg bw/day the PVP-EG-AgNPs induce increased PROTC levels and decreased GSH (males and females) and TAC levels (males). The different mechanisms of EG-AgNPs and PVP-EG-AgNPs on antioxidant-/pro-oxidant balance can be explained by the influence of coating agent used for the preparation of the nanoparticles in the formation and composition of protein corona that influence their pathophysiology in the organism.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant activity; oxidative stress; silver nanoparticles; subacute toxicity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32059471 PMCID: PMC7072874 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21041233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1images recorded for (a) EG-AgNPs and (b) PVP-EG-AgNPs.
Figure 2Histogram indicating the particle size distribution: (a)Ag-NPs functionalized with ethylene glycol (EG-Ag NPs); (b)Ag-NPs functionalized with polyvinylpyrolidone and ethylene glycol.
Markers at 28 days after exposure to different concentrations of EG-AgNPs.
| Parameter | Males | Females | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 1 mg/kgbw | 2 mg/kgbw | 4 mg/kgbw | Control | 1 mg/kgbw | 2 mg/kgbw | 4 mg/kgbw | ||
| TAC | Average | 0.2422 | 0.4993 * | 0.3758 * | 0.2561 | 0.2316 | 0.5161 * | 0.5450 * | 0.2584 * |
| SD | 0.0138 | 0.492 | 0.0492 | 0.0157 | 0.0159 | 0.0091 | 0.0140 | 0.0060 | |
| % to control | 106.2% | 55.2% | 5.7% | 122.8% | 135.3% | 11.6% | |||
| GSH | Average | 1.9408 | 1.8092 | 1.9901 | 2.0559 | 2.2039 | 2.4178* | 1.9342* | 2.2270 |
| SD | 0.1628 | 0.0601 | 0.0349 | 0.0349 | 0.0233 | 0.0814 | 0.0221 | 0.1506 | |
| % to control | −6.8% | 2.5% | 5.9% | 9.7% | −12.2% | 1.1% | |||
| CAT | Average | 177.38 | 168.5714 | 185.02 | 192.96 | 171.03 | 171.10 | 177.78 | 188.27* |
| SD | 2.38 | 28.9076 | 2.175 | 1.61 | 0.56 | 2.51 | 1.56 | 11.25 | |
| % to control | −5.0% | 4.3% | 8.8% | 0.1% | 3.9% | 10.1% | |||
Notes: * p< 0.05 compared to the control group.
Markers at 28 days after exposure to different concentrations of PVP-EG-AgNPs.
| Parameter | Males | Females | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 1 mg/kgbw | 2 mg/kgbw | 4 mg/kgbw | Control | 1 mg/kgbw | 2 mg/kgbw | 4 mg/kgbw | ||
| TAC | Average | 0.2422 | 0.3472 * | 0.2545 | 0.2038 * | 0.2316 | 0.4009 * | 0.2171 | 0.2450 |
| SD | 0.0138 | 0.0016 | 0.0138 | 0.0063 | 0.0159 | 0.0315 | 0.0031 | 0.0039 | |
| % to control | 43.4% | −5.1% | −15.9% | 73.1% | −6.3% | 5.8% | |||
| GSH | Average | 1.9408 | 2.2862 | 2.1875 | 0.8224 * | 2.2039 | 2.1382 | 2.0066 * | 1.5461 * |
| SD | 0.1628 | 0.1977 | 0.1047 | 0.3489 | 0.0233 | 0.1163 | 0.0930 | 0.0698 | |
| % to control | 17.8% | 12.7% | −57.6% | −3.0% | −9.0% | −29.9% | |||
| CAT | Average | 177.38 | 169.84 | 216.47* | 181.84 | 171.03 | 199.01* | 188.09 | 179.66 |
| SD | 2.38 | 5.61 | 15.43 | 2.59 | 0.56 | 14.73 | 5.33 | 13.96 | |
| % to control | −4.3% | 22.0% | 2.5% | 16.4% | 10.0% | 5.1% | |||
Notes: * p< 0.05 compared to control group.
Markers at 28 days after exposure to different concentrations of EG-AgNPs.
| Parameter | Males | Females | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 1 mg/kgbw | 2 mg/kgbw | 4 mg/kgbw | Control | 1 mg/kgbw | 2 mg/kgbw | 4 mg/kgbw | ||
| TBARS | Average | 0.6290 | 1.1174 * | 0.5323 | 0.4903 | 0.7032 | 0.7118 | 0.4361 * | 0.4619 * |
| SD | 0.0798 | 0.3934 | 0.0205 | 0.0274 | 0.0274 | 0.0249 | 0.0202 | 0.0195 | |
| % to control | 77.7% | −15.4% | −22.1% | 1.2% | −38.0% | −34.3% | |||
| PROTC | Average | 0.9008 | 1.0297 | 0.9450 | 0.8287 | 1.0792 | 1.7134* | 0.7076 | 0.5934* |
| SD | 0.1029 | 0.0649 | 0.1090 | 0.1711 | 0.0611 | 0.7115 | 0.0257 | 0.1499 | |
| % to control | 14.3% | 4.9% | −8.0% | 58.8% | −34.4% | −45.0% | |||
Notes: * p< 0.05 compared to thecontrol group.
Markers at 28 days after exposure to different concentrations of PVP-EG-AgNPs.
| Parameter | Males | Females | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 1 mg/kgbw | 2 mg/kgbw | 4 mg/kgbw | Control | 1 mg/kgbw | 2 mg/kgbw | 4 mg/kgbw | ||
| TBARS | Average | 0.6290 | 0.6710 | 0.4968* | 0.5194* | 0.7032 | 0.4677* | 0.5065* | 0.8129 |
| SD | 0.0798 | 0.0502 | 0.0137 | 0.0068 | 0.0274 | 0.0205 | 0.0205 | 0.1962 | |
| % to control | −6.7% | −21.0% | −17.4% | −33.5% | −28.0% | 15.6% | |||
| PROTC | Average | 0.9008 | 0.6718 | 2.1341* | 3.8725* | 1.0792 | 0.7884 | 2.5592* | 2.5274* |
| SD | 0.1029 | 0.0516 | 0.8640 | 0.1741 | 0.0611 | 0.0320 | 0.0994 | 0.4932 | |
| % to control | −25.4% | −136.9% | 330.0% | −27.0% | 137.1% | 134.2% | |||
Notes: * p< 0.05 compared to the control group.
Figure 3Representation of EG-Ag-NPs synthesis.
Figure 4Design of the study.