| Literature DB >> 32927928 |
Şenol Kalyoncu1, Bülent Yilmaz2, Mustafa Demir3, Meltem Tuncer4, Zehra Bozdağ5, Onur Ince6, Mehmet Akif Bozdayi7, Hasan Ulusal7, Seyithan Taysi7.
Abstract
Background/aim: To evaluate the protective effect of melatonin on ovarian ischemia reperfusion injury in a rat model. Materials and methods: Forty-eight rats were separated equally into 6 groups. Group 1: sham; Group 2: surgical control with 3-h bilateral ovarian torsion and detorsion; Group 3: intraperitoneal 5% ethanol (1 mL) just after detorsion (as melatonin was dissolved in ethanol); Group 4: 10 mg/kg intraperitoneal melatonin 30 min before 3-h torsion; Group 5:10 mg/kg intraperitoneal melatonin just after detorsion; Group 6:10 mg/kg intraperitoneal melatonin 30 min before torsion and just after detorsion. Both ovaries and blood samples were obtained 7 days after detorsion for histopathological and biochemical analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Ischemia reperfusion injury; melatonin; oxidative stress index; peroxynitrite; rat ovarian torsion
Year: 2020 PMID: 32927928 PMCID: PMC7605088 DOI: 10.3906/sag-2004-135
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Turk J Med Sci ISSN: 1300-0144 Impact factor: 0.973
Comparison of tissue TAS, TOS, OSI, and peroxynitrite levels between control and melatonin treated groups.
| TAS | TOS | OSI | Peroxynitrite | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (n: 8) | 8.04 ± 1.36 | 83.59 ± 14.61 | 1.08 ± 0.34 | 38.18 ± 8.07 |
| Group 2 (n: 8) | 8.43 ± 1.83 | 114.80 ± 27.07 | 1.41 ± 0.38 | 45.34 ± 5.70 |
| Group 3 (n: 8) | 9.30 ± 2.65 | 120.38 ± 25.75 | 1.40 ± 0.58 | 44.15 ± 3.37 |
| Group 4 (n: 7) | 10.34 ± 1.12 | 106.89 ± 21.48 | 1.05 ± 0.25 | 34.77 ± 8.59 |
| Group 5 (n: 8) | 10.46 ± 1.76 | 100.02 ± 21.13 | 0.97 ± 0.24 | 35.20 ± 8.44 |
| Group 6 (n: 8) | 10.63 ± 1.83 | 108.20 ± 15.22 | 1.05 ± 0.23 | 34.01 ± 8.63 |
| P-value | 0.024a | 0.029b | 0.056b | 0.009a |
Values are presented as mean ± SD, median (interquartile range), T: tissue, TAS: total antioxidant status, TOS: total oxidant status; OSI: oxidative stress index, n; number Units of ovarian tissue TAS: millimol Trolox Eq/gr, TOS: micromol H2O2 Eq/gr, OSI: arbitrary unit, and Peroxynitrite: micromol/gr. P-values were calculated with aone-way ANOVA or bKruskal–Wallis test. The significant pairwise group comparison results were as represented below: For TAS: no significant pairwise comparison (post hoc test: Tukey HSD). For TOS: 1 vs. 3: P = 0.0030 (Mann–Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction). For peroxynitrite: 2 vs. 6: P = 0.040 (post hoc test: Tukey HSD)
Comparison of serum TAS, TOS, OSI, and peroxynitrite levels between control and melatonin treated groups.
| TAS | TOS | OSI | Peroxynitrite | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (n: 8) | 1.12 ± 0.13 | 10.37 ± 6.80 | 0.96 ± 0.67 | 0.85 ± 0.20 |
| Group 2 (n: 8) | 1.04 ± 0.07 | 26.64 ± 10.12 | 2.56 ± 1.01 | 1.28 ± 0.24 |
| Group 3 (n: 8) | 1.21 ± 0.42 | 9.12 ± 8.02 | 2.71 ± 0.56 | 1.16 ± 0.28 |
| Group 4 (n: 7) | 1.03 ± 0.07 | 24.31 ± 7.10 | 1.07 ± 0.52 | 0.75 ± 0.39 |
| Group 5 (n: 8) | 1.18 ± 0.07 | 14.68 ± 7.82 | 0.94 ± 0.36 | 0.91 ± 0.38 |
| Group 6 (n: 8) | 1.24 ± 0.20 | 13.99 ± 9.41 | 0.72 ± 0.49 | 0.60 ± 0.34 |
| P-value | 0.009 | 0.002 | <0.001 | 0.002 |
Values are presented as mean ± SD, median (interquartile range), T: tissue, TAS: total antioxidant status, TOS: total oxidant status; OSI: oxidative stress index, n; number Units of serum TAS: millimol Trolox Eq/L, TOS: micromol H2O2 Eq/L, OSI: arbitrary unit and Peroxynitrite: micromol/L.P-values for multigroup comparisons were calculated with Kruskal–Wallis. The significant pairwise group comparison results were as represented below: (post hoc test: Bonferroni correction) For TAS: 4 vs. 5: P = 0.0026. For TOS: 1 vs. 2: P = 0.0023. For OSI: 1 vs. 2: P = 0.0023, 1 vs. 3: P = 0.0023, 2 vs. 6: P = 0.0016, 3 vs. 4: P = 0.0026, 3 vs. 5: P = 0.0008, 3 vs. 6: P = 0.0011. For peroxynitrite: 2 vs. 6: P = 0.0023.
Comparison of histopathological scores of ovarian damage between control and melatonin treated groups.
| Hemorrhage | Congestion | Folliculardegeneration | Inflammation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (n: 8) | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 0.13 ± 0.35 | 0.13 ± 0.35 |
| Group 2 (n: 8) | 1.88 ± 0.35 | 1.88 ± 0.64 | 2.38 ± 0.74 | 2.75 ± 0.46 |
| Group 3 (n: 8) | 2.13 ± 0.35 | 2.13 ± 0.35 | 2.00 ± 0.76 | 3.00 ± 0.00 |
| Group 4 (n: 7) | 1.14 ± 0.38 | 1.29 ± 0.76 | 1.00 ± 0.58 | 2.00 ± 0.82 |
| Group 5 (n: 8) | 0.88 ± 0.35 | 1.13 ± 0.35 | 0.75 ± 0.46 | 1.88 ± 0.83 |
| Group 6 (n: 8) | 1.13 ± 0.35 | 1.25 ± 0.46 | 1.13 ± 0.64 | 1.88 ± 1.13 |
| P-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Values are presented as mean ± SD, median (interquartile range),n: number. P-values were calculated with Kruskal–Wallis. The significant results by pairwise group comparison using Mann–Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction were as represented below: For hemorrhage: 1 vs. 2: P = 0.0001, 1 vs. 3: P = 0.0001, 1 vs. 4: P = 0.0002, 1 vs. 5: P = 0.0006, 1 vs. 6: P = 0.0001, 2 vs. 5: P = 0.0008, 3 vs. 4: P = 0.0014, 3 vs. 5: P = 0.0002, 3 vs. 6: P = 0.0008. For congestion: 1 vs. 2: P = 0.0031, 1 vs. 3: P = 0.0001, 3 vs. 5: P = 0.0008, 3 vs. 6: P = 0.0028. For full degeneration: 1 vs. 2: P = 0.0005, 1 vs. 3: P = 0.0006, 2 vs. 5: P = 0.0013, 3 vs. 5: P = 0.0032. For inflammation: 1 vs. 2: P = 0.0003, 1 vs. 3: P = 0.0001, 1 vs. 4: P = 0.0009, 1 vs. 5: P = 0.0007, 1 vs. 6: P = 0.0027.
Comparison of ovarian follicle count between control and melatonin treated groups.
| Primordial | Primary | Secondary | Tertiary | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| follicle count (n) | follicle count (n) | follicle count (n) | follicle count (n) | |
| Group 1 (n: 8) | 8.3 ± 3.4 | 5.9 ± 3.8 | 4.5 ± 1.6 | 8.4 ± 2.7 |
| Group 2 (n: 8) | 4.8 ± 1.5 | 3.9 ± 1.6 | 3.4 ± 1.7 | 3.6 ± 2.5 |
| Group 3 (n: 8) | 5.1 ± 1.7 | 5.9 ± 2.2 | 4.8 ± 1.2 | 7.0 ± 1.4 |
| Group 4 (n: 7) | 5.3 ± 1.4 | 4.0 ± 1.4 | 4.4 ± 1.6 | 7.9 ± 3.5 |
| Group 5 (n: 8) | 5.8 ± 1.3 | 3.9 ± 1.0 | 4.9 ± 2.0 | 6.6 ± 3.3 |
| Group 6 (n: 8) | 10.3 ± 3.0 | 5.3 ± 2.1 | 5.3 ± 2.8 | 8.1 ± 2.4 |
| p-value | <0.001a | 0.263b | 0.584b | 0.023b |
Values are presented as mean ± SD, median (interquartile range), n: number.P-values were calculated with aone-way ANOVA or bKruskal–Wallis test. The significant pairwise group comparison results were as represented below: For primordial follicle count: 2 vs. 6: P = 0.0002, 3 vs. 6: P = 0.0005, 4 vs. 6: P = 0.0012, 5 vs. 6: P = 0.0027 (post hoc test: Tukey HSD) For tertiary follicle count: 1 vs. 2: P = 0.003 (Mann–Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction)