| Literature DB >> 32630784 |
Thikryat Neamatallah1, Nagla El-Shitany1,2, Aymn Abbas3,4, Basma G Eid1, Steve Harakeh3,5, Soad Ali6, Shaker Mousa5.
Abstract
Cisplatin is an anticancer drug commonly used for solid tumors. However, it causes nephrotoxicity. OAT1 and OAT3 are organic anion transporters known to contribute to the uptake of cisplatin into renal tubular cells. The present study was designed to examine the protective role of ellagic acid nanoformulation (ellagic acid nano) on cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in rats, and the role of OAT1/OAT3 in this effect. Four groups of male Wistar rats were used (n = 6): (1) control, (2) cisplatin (7.5 mg/kg single dose, intraperitoneal), (3) cisplatin + ellagic acid nano (1 mg/kg), and (4) cisplatin + ellagic acid nano (2 mg/kg). Nephrotoxic rats treated with ellagic acid nano exhibited a significant reduction in elevated serum creatinine, urea, and oxidative stress marker, malondialdehyde (MDA). Additionally, ellagic acid nano restored renal glutathione (GSH), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and glutathione peroxidase (GPx). Ellagic acid nano improved the histopathological changes induced by cisplatin, such as tubular dilatation, necrosis, and degeneration. Interestingly, OAT1 and OAT3 showed significantly lower expression at both mRNA and protein levels following ellagic acid nano treatment relative to the cisplatin-exposed group. These findings reveal a potential inhibitory role of ellagic acid antioxidant on OAT1 and OAT3 expression and thus explains its nephroprotective effect against cisplatin nephrotoxicity.Entities:
Keywords: cisplatin; ellagic acid nano; nephrotoxicity; organic anion transporters; oxidative stress
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32630784 PMCID: PMC7411712 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25133031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Impact of ellagic acid nanoformulation on renal hypertrophy, serum creatinine, and urea measured in cisplatin-treated rats.
| Control | Cisplatin | Ellagic Acid Nano | Ellagic Acid Nano | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Renal hypertrophy | 4.15 ± 0.05 | 5.96 ± 0.26 a | 4.08 ± 0.41 b | 3.88 ± 0.55 b |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.65 ± 0.05 | 2.38 ± 0.18 a | 1.07 ± 0.17 b | 0.80 ± 0.07 b |
| Urea (mg/dL) | 26.9 ± 1.41 | 181.20 ± 8.09 a | 105.32 ± 6.01 b | 29.53 ± 3.69 b, c |
Results were presented as mean ± SE (n = 6). a p ≤ 0.05 relative to the control group. b p ≤ 0.05 relative to the cisplatin group. c p ≤ 0.05 relative to ellagic acid nano (1 mg/kg) group.
Figure 1Impact of ellagic acid nanoformulation on kidney histopathology examined in cisplatin- (7.5 mg/kg) treated rats. (A) Control: normal kidney parenchyma, renal corpuscle, glomeruli (white arrow and star), narrow lumen proximal tubules, and normal epithelial lining (black arrows). (B) Cisplatin: dilated proximal tubules with lumen containing pretentious casts (dotted arrows). Other tubules exhibited dark apoptotic cells with degenerated nuclei (white arrow). Mild changes were observed in the renal glomeruli (stars). (C) Ellagic acid nano (1 mg/kg): mildly dilated lumen proximal tubules and renal glomeruli (stars), also few containing casts (dotted arrow). (D) Ellagic acid nano (2 mg/kg): marked improvement in proximal tubules (black arrows). This section looked mostly free from casts (dotted arrow). (E) Ellagic acid nano only (2 mg/kg): normal renal corpuscles with their glomeruli (stars) and normal renal tubules (black arrows). (F) Semiquantitative tubular injury score. Results were presented as mean ± SE (n = 6). * p ≤ 0.05 relative to the control group; # p ≤ 0.05 relative to cisplatin group; Ω p ≤ 0.05 relative to ellagic acid nano (1 mg/kg) group.
Impact of ellagic acid nanoformulation on kidney antioxidants measured in cisplatin-treated rats.
| Control | Cisplatin | Ellagic Acid Nano | Ellagic Acid Nano | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MDA (μM/mg protein) | 35.5 ± 9.7 | 113.5 ± 12.1 a | 62.8 ± 3.5 b | 25.9 ± 6.9 b, c |
| GSH (mg/mg protein) | 4.6 ± 0.17 | 3.9 ± 0.18 a | 5.1 ± 0.34 b | 5.4 ± 0.24 b |
| GPx (U/mg protein) | 665 ± 39 | 136 ± 11 a | 221 ± 7 b | 241 ± 4 b |
| SOD (U/mg protein) | 1615 ± 270 | 373 ± 72 a | 600 ± 53 b | 605 ± 41 b |
| CAT (U/mg protein) | 13.0 ± 2.1 | 6.7 ± 0.5 a | 9.6 ± 0.9 b | 10.5 ± 0.4 b |
Results were presented as mean ± SE (n = 6). a p ≤ 0.05 relative to the control group. b p ≤ 0.05 relative to the cisplatin group. c p ≤ 0.05 relative to ellagic acid nano (1 mg/kg) group.
Figure 2Impact of ellagic acid nanoformulation on kidney OAT1 immunoexpression examined in cisplatin-treated rats. (A) Control group; (B) cisplatin group; (C) ellagic acid nano (1 mg/kg); and (D) ellagic acid nano (2 mg/kg). (E) Bar chart showing OAT1 immunoexpression (area %) in the different experimental groups. Results were presented as mean ± SE (n = 6). * p ≤ 0.05 relative to the control group; # p ≤ 0.05 relative to cisplatin group; Ω p ≤ 0.05 relative to ellagic acid nano (1 mg/kg) group.
Figure 3Impact of ellagic acid nanoformulation on kidney OAT3 immunoexpression examined in cisplatin-treated rats. (A) Control group; (B) cisplatin group; (C) ellagic acid nano (1 mg/kg); and (D) ellagic acid nano (mg/kg). (E) Bar chart showing OAT3 immunoexpression (area %) in the different experimental groups. Results were presented as mean ± SE (n = 6). * p ≤ 0.05 relative to the control group; # p ≤ 0.05 relative to cisplatin group; Ω p ≤ 0.05 relative to ellagic acid nano (1 mg/kg) group.
Figure 4Impact of ellagic acid nanoformulation on kidney nuclear factor kappa-beta (NFK-B) immunoexpression examined in cisplatin-treated rats. (A) Control group; (B) cisplatin group; (C) ellagic acid nano (1 mg/kg); and (D) ellagic acid nano (2 mg/kg). (E) Bar chart showing NFK-B immunoexpression (area %) in the different experimental groups. Results were presented as mean ± SE (n = 6). * p ≤ 0.05 relative to the control group; # p ≤ 0.05 relative to cisplatin group; Ω p ≤ 0.05 relative to ellagic acid nano (1 mg/kg) group.
Figure 5Real-time PCR analysis of (A) OAT1 mRNA, and (B) OAT3 mRNA expression in kidney tissues of expression levels were normalized to the reference gene B2m using the comparative Ct method (2−∆∆ Ct). Results were presented as mean ± SE (n = 6). * p ≤ 0.05 relative to the control group; # p ≤ 0.05 relative to cisplatin group; Ω p ≤ 0.05 relative to ellagic acid nano (1 mg/kg) group.
Figure 6Impact of ellagic acid nanoformulation on solid Ehrlich carcinoma histopathology examined in cisplatin- (3.5 mg/kg) treated rats. (A,B) Control Ehrlich carcinoma: marked angiogenesis in non-treated solid Ehrlich carcinoma and active malignant cells with marked nuclear pleomorphism (star). (C,D) Cisplatin: absence of angiogenesis at the tumor periphery (black star) with few blood vessels at the central region (white arrows); notice the degenerated tumor cells with dark pyknotic nuclei (white star). (E,F) Cisplatin + Ellagic acid nano (2 mg/kg): absence of angiogenesis with marked degenerative changes in tumor cells (white stars). (G) A bar chart showing tumor weight in all the experimental groups. Results were presented as mean ± SE (n = 6). * p ≤ 0.05 relative to the control Ehrlich carcinoma group.
Primer nucleotide sequences used in the qRT-PCR examination of gene expression.
| Primer Name | Sequence |
|---|---|
| B2m | Forward: 5′- GATGTCAGATCTGTCCTTCAGCA -3′ |
| OAT1 | Forward: 5′- CGTCGGACGCTTCCAGTTGA -3′ |
| OAT3 | Forward: 5′- TGCCTACTACAGTTTGGCTATGG -3′ |