| Literature DB >> 32184916 |
A F Gal1, L Stan2, F Tăbăran1, D Rugină1, A F Cătoi3, S Andrei1.
Abstract
Currently, one of the central problems in cancer management is the relapse of disease following conventional treatments, yet few therapeutic agents targeting resistance and tolerance exist. Propolis is known as a healing agent since ancient times. Therefore, over time, its curative properties have kept the interest of scientists, thus leading permanently to investigations of its other possible undiscovered effects. In this context, current experiments were performed to establish the chemopreventive potential of propolis extract (PE) (1.05 mg/kg BW/day) in N-methyl-N-nitrosourea- (MNU-) induced rat mammary tumors. MNU-inoculated/PE-treated rats had tumors of different physical attributes compared with control rats MNU-inoculated. The number of developed tumors (mean 49% versus 100%), incidence (mean 49% versus 100%), multiplicity (1.8 versus 3.7 (p < 0.001)), tumor volume (mean 10 cm3 versus 16 cm3 (p < 0.001)), and weight of the tumor mass (mean 7.42 g versus 9.00 g (p < 0.05)) were noted. The numbers of grade I tumors recorded for MNU-inoculated rats were 24 (Group 1) and 7 (Group 2) for MNU-induced/PE-treated rats. In the serum of rats MNU-inoculated/PE-treated were found higher levels of antioxidative enzymes (SOD, CAT, and GPx) than in MNU-induced. Taken together, these data indicate that propolis could be a chemopreventive agent against MNU-induced mammary carcinogenesis.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32184916 PMCID: PMC7063188 DOI: 10.1155/2020/4014838
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Figure 1(a) MNU-induced mammary tumors visible as subcutaneous masses of different sizes (arrows and selected area); Rat no. 3, Group 1. (b) Gross features of MNU-induced mammary tumors following skinning (arrows); Rat no. 3, Group 1. (c) and (d) are comparative features regarding the location and gross features of the MNU-induced mammary tumors (arrows) in Group 2 individuals (Rat no. 7). (e) Invasive tubular carcinoma, grade 1, represented by tubular and tubulopapillar structures; HE stain (Group 1, Rat 1, 5th left mammary gland). (f) Ductal in situ cribriform carcinoma, grade 2, made of a solid proliferation with formation of secondary lumina; HE stain (Group 1, Rat 3, 1st right mammary gland). (g) Ductal in situ comedo-carcinoma, grade 2, which appears as distended ductal structures with a multilayered epithelium surrounding a necrotized area; HE stain (Group 1, 2nd left mammary gland). (h) Invasive tubular carcinoma, grade 3, composed of tubular structures with increased nuclear size and prominent nucleoli; HE stain (Group 2, Rat 4, 2nd left mammary gland). (i) Fibroadenoma composed of ductal structures surrounded by fibrous tissue; HE stain (Group 2, Rat 9, 4th right mammary gland).
Mammary tumor occurrence in Group 1: histological features, tumors location, and size; non-mammary tumors detected.
| Rat no. | Group 1 (MNU) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mammary tumor type | Mammary tumor size (cm) | MTM(%)1 relative to FBW2 | Other tumor types | |
| 1 | Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M1 right) | 1.3/1.3 | 17.39 | — |
| Carcinosarcoma, G-1 (M4 right) | 3.5/2.6 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M2 left) | 1.3/2.1 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M5 left) | 6.8/3.5 | |||
|
| ||||
| 2 | Invasive cribriform carcinoma, G-1 (M1 right) | 1.4/1 | 10.78 | Interstitial renal tumor (1.3/1 cm) |
| Ductal | 1.7/1.2 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-2 (M3 right) | 6.0/3.5 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M5 right) | 1.7/1.2 | |||
| Ductal | 2.4/2.2 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M3 left) | 2.1/2.0 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M5 left) | 1.3/0.9 | |||
|
| ||||
| 3 | Ductal | 3/2.5 | 29.27 | — |
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M3 right) | 3.5/3 | |||
| Ductal | 2.5/2.2 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M5 right) | 1.3/1.2 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M1 left) | 2.5/2 | |||
| Fibroadenoma (M2 left) | 5/4.5 | |||
| Ductal | 6.5/5.1 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M4 left) | 6.2/5.6 | |||
| Ductal | 4/3.5 | |||
|
| ||||
| 4 | Ductal | 0.8/0.5 | 23.87 | Malignant lymphoma (diffuse in both mammary chains) |
| Ductal | 7.9/6.5 | |||
| Ductal | 3/2.7 | |||
| Ductal | 5.4/3.2 | |||
|
| ||||
| 5 | Fibroadenoma (M4 right) | 1.7/1.4 | 0.25 | — |
|
| ||||
| 6 | Ductal | 0.8/0.6 | 4.76 | — |
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-2 (M3 left) | 4.2/3.7 | |||
|
| ||||
| 7 | Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M1 right) | 1.2/0.5 | 0.97 | — |
| Adenoma (M2 right) | 1.1/1 | |||
| Adenoma (M2 left) | 1.0/0.7 | |||
| Invasive papillary carcinoma, G-1 (M3 left) | 0.9/0.9 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M4 left) | 0.9/0.6 | |||
|
| ||||
| 8 | Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-2 (M2 right) | 1.3/1.2 | 1.82 | — |
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M2 left) | 2.8/2.3 | |||
|
| ||||
| 9 | — | — | — | Liposarcoma in the omentum (1.7/1.2 cm) |
| Ovarian fibrosarcoma (1.5/1.2 cm) | ||||
|
| ||||
| 10 | Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-2 (M3 right) | 1.2/1.2 | 0.95 | — |
| Fibroadenoma (M1 left) | 1.4/1.2 | |||
| Ductal in situ cribriform carcinoma, G-1 (M5 left) | 1.2/1 | |||
1MTm: mammary tumor mass; 2FBW: final body weight; MNU: N-methyl-N-nitrosourea; M1-5: mammary gland number and its side (i.e., right, left); G: histological grade.
Chemopreventive effects of propolis on mammary tumor occurrence in Group 2: histological features, tumors location, and size; non-mammary tumors detected.
| Rat no. | Group 2 (MNU+PE) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mammary tumor type | Mammary tumor size (cm) | MTM(%)1 relative to FBW2 | Other tumor types | |
| 1 | Invasive cribriform carcinoma, G-1 (M1 left) | 1.5/1.5 | 22 | — |
| Invasive cribriform carcinoma, G-3 (M2 left) | 4.5/3 | |||
| Invasive cribriform carcinoma, G-2 (M5 left) | 7.5/4.4 | |||
|
| ||||
| 2 | Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-2 (M4 left) | 3.5/2.4 | 32.8 | Rhabdomyosarcoma (diaphragm) |
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-2 (M5 left) | 4.5/2.2 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M1 right) | 1.5/0.8 | |||
|
| ||||
| 3 | Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-2 (M1 right) | 2.5/2.8 | 1.33 | |
| Invasive papillary carcinoma, G-2 (M1 left) | 1.1/0.6 | |||
|
| ||||
| 4 | Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-3 (M1 left) | 1/0.7 | 5.78 | — |
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-3 (M2 left) | 5.5/3.2 | |||
|
| ||||
| 5 | — | — | — | — |
|
| ||||
| 6 | — | — | — | — |
|
| ||||
| 7 | Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M2 right) | 3.5/3.2 | 11.56 | Squamous carcinoma (facial skin) |
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-2 (M4 right) | 5/3.5 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M2 left) | 3.5/1.5 | |||
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M4 left) | 5.2/2.5 | |||
|
| ||||
| 8 | Ductal | 1.1/0.6 | 0.55 | |
| Invasive tubular carcinoma, G-1 (M2 left) | 1.8/1.3 | |||
|
| ||||
| 9 | Fibroadenoma (M4 right) | 1.2/1.1 | 0.22 | — |
| Fibroadenoma (M1 left) | 1.1/1 | |||
|
| ||||
| 10 | — | — | — | — |
1MTm: mammary tumor mass; 2FBW: final body weight; MNU: N-methyl-N-nitrosourea; PE: propolis; M1-5: mammary gland number and its side (i.e., right, left); G: histological grade.
Comparative data concerning mammary and non-mammary tumors developed in rats of Groups 1 and 2.
| Experimental group | Multiplicity1 | Average MTM(%)2 relative to FBW3 | Average mammary tumors volume4 | Total number of mammary tumors/group | Non-mammary tumors/group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | 3.7 ± 2.75 | 9.00 ± 10.86 | 16.68 ± 33.32 | 37 | 4 |
| Group 2 | 1.8 ± 1.39ns | 7.42 ± 11.43ns | 10.76 ± 17.17ns | 18 | 2 |
1Multiplicity (i.e., average mammary tumor number/rat); 2MTM: mammary tumor mass; 3FBW: final body weight; 4Mammary tumor volume calculated using the formula suggested by Woditschka et al., 2008. In order to determine significant differences between mean values, Student's t test was used (GraphPad Prism version 6.07).
Modulatory influences of MNU and propolis on blood biochemical parameters.
| Blood parameter | Experimental group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | |
| Blood proteins | ||||
| Total proteins (g/dL) | 7.08 ± 0.77ns | 7.05 ± 1.34ns | 7.37 ± 0.17ns | 7.66 ± 0.44 |
| Albumins (g/dL) | 4.98 ± 1.07∗ | 5.45 ± 1.31ns | 5.35 ± 0.29ns | 6.06 ± 0.24 |
| Globulins (g/dL) | 2.08±0.43∗∗ | 1.70 ± 0.22# | 2.15±0.26∗∗∗ | 1.60 ± 0.21 |
| The activity of blood enzymes | ||||
| ALP (U/L) | 147.71 ± 72.24ns | 147.71 ± 72.24ns | 130.00 ± 3.16ns | 151.66 ± 53.09 |
| ALT (U/L) | 117.14 ± 85.40ns | 80.66 ± 35.53ns | 70.50 ± 1.50ns | 98.33 ± 31.04 |
| AMY (U/L) | 527.28 ± 96.89ns | 628.16 ± 112.82ns | 615.75 ± 166.09ns | 592.66 ± 29.10 |
| Blood biochemical parameters | ||||
| TBIL (mg/dL) | 0.21 ± 0.09∗ | 0.22 ± 0.04ns | 0.33 ± 0.04ns | 0.30 ± 0.08 |
| BUN (mg/dL) | 16.00 ± 2.00ns | 14.83 ± 2.60ns | 12.75±1.08∗∗∗ | 17.66 ± 1.24 |
| CRE (mg/dL) | 0.18±0.09∗∗ | 0.20 ± 0.05ns | 0.22 ± 0.08∗ | 0.30 ± 0.06 |
| GLU (mg/dL) | 158.25±5.26∗∗∗ | 97.33 ± 26.78### | 48.83 ± 16.72ns | 61.00 ± 13.20 |
| Blood microminerals | ||||
| Ca (mg/dL) | 11.77 ± 1.09ns | 11.11 ± 2.26ns | 11.37 ± 0.28ns | 11.53 ± 0.23 |
| Pa (mg/dL) | 6.48 ± 1.86ns | 5.71 ± 1.54ns | 5.10 ± 0.15ns | 5.30 ± 0.28 |
| Na (mmol/L) | 144.14±1.24∗∗ | 142.60 ± 1.85ns | 142.25 ± 1.47ns | 142.00 ± 1.41 |
| K (mmol/L) | 8.50 ± 0.49ns | 8.00 ± 1.4ns | 7.70 ± 0.78ns | 7.60 ± 0.21ns |
Values are mean ± SD. Each group contains ten animals. Comparisons were made on the basis of the one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's test (GraphPad Prism version 6.07). Group 1 (MNU-inoculated rats) and Group 3 (PE-treated rats) were compared with the normal control group (Group 4) (ns: nonsignificant, ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.0001), respective Group 1 MNU-inoculated with Group 2 (MNU-inoculated/PE-treated) (MNU) (ns: nonsignificant, #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.0001).
Figure 2Effect of MNU-inoculation and propolis diet administration on hepatic antioxidative markers in rats. Statistically, all groups were compared with Group 1 (MNU-inoculated), respective to Group 4 control (normal saline inoculation and normal rat food) (∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.0001). Comparisons for the antioxidant profile were made on the basis of the one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's test (GraphPad Prism version 6.07).