| Literature DB >> 33282684 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myocardial infarction is a major heart disease and is considered a significant reason for mortality and morbidity around the world. The model of Isoproterenol (ISO)-induced myocardial infarction provides a supported method for investigating the impacts of numerous possible cardioprotective bioactive substances. Nitric Oxide (NO) could react with reactive oxygen intermediates and free radicals to create harmful species. For several years, researchers have investigated the use of herbs and natural products as antioxidants to protect the body's organs against toxins and drug metabolites. However, studies on the antioxidant effects of ginger against cardiotoxicity induced by drugs and toxic agents remain insufficient, especially its effects on NO. AIMS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; ginger; isoproterenol; myocardial infarction; nitric oxide
Year: 2020 PMID: 33282684 PMCID: PMC7703011 DOI: 10.4103/JMAU.JMAU_70_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Microsc Ultrastruct ISSN: 2213-879X
Comparison of mean values of serum CK-MB (U/l) between the studied groups, t-test, and analysis of variance
| Group | Serum CK-MB | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean±SD | ANOVA | ||||
| Group I (control group) | 117.1±2.81 | ||||
| Group II (ginger group) | 120.4±2.67 | 2.69 | 0.015 | 4603.11 | 0.001** |
| Group III (isoproterenol-induced MI) | 307.5±6.08 | 89.89 | 0.001* | ||
| Group IV (ginger- and isoproterenol-induced MI) | 193±4.14 | 47.97 | 0.001* | ||
*Significant compared to the control group, **Significant. MI: Myocardial infarction, ANOVA: Analysis of variance, SD: Standard deviation, CK-MB: Creatine kinase-myocardial bound
Figure 1Tukey's test simultaneously with 95% confidence interval differences for creatine kinase-myocardial bound
Comparison of mean values of serum LDH (U/l) between the studied groups, t-test, and analysis of variance
| Group | Serum LDH | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean±SD | ANOVA | ||||
| Group I (control group) | 72.6±1.95 | ||||
| Group II (ginger group) | 69.9±1.91 | 3.13 | 0.006 | 2164.76 | 0.001** |
| Group III (isoproterenol-induced MI) | 153.2±2.53 | 79.79 | 0.001* | ||
| Group IV (ginger- and isoproterenol-induced MI) | 103.5±3.72 | 23.36 | 0.001* | ||
*Significant compared to the control group, **Significant. MI: Myocardial infarction, ANOVA: Analysis of variance, SD: Standard deviation, LDH: Lactate dehydrogenase
Figure 2Tukey's test simultaneous with 95% confidence interval differences for lactate dehydrogenase
Comparison of mean malondialdehyde values (nmol/mg protein) in heart homogenates between study groups using t-test and analysis of variance
| Group | MDA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean±SD | ANOVA | ||||
| Group I (control group) | 0.94±0.023 | ||||
| Group II (ginger group) | 0.84±0.023 | 8.77 | 0.001* | 3168.64 | 0.001** |
| Group III (isoproterenol-induced MI) | 1.92±0.038 | 78.32 | 0.001* | ||
| Group IV (ginger- and isoproterenol-induced MI) | 1.05±0.025 | 8.85 | 0.001* | ||
*Significant compared to control group, **Significant. MDA: Malondialdehyde, MI: Myocardial infarction, ANOVA: Analysis of variance, SD: Standard deviation
Figure 3Tukey's test simultaneously with 95% confidence interval differences for malondialdehyde
Comparison of the mean serum TNF-α levels (pg/ml) between study groups using t-test and analysis of variance
| Group | TNF-α | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean±SD | ANOVA | ||||
| Group I (control group) | 25.32±1.70 | ||||
| Group II (ginger group) | 21.99±1.27 | 3.49 | 0.007 | 2198.23 | 0.001** |
| Group III (isoproterenol-induced MI) | 89.73±2.82 | 67.48 | 0.001* | ||
| Group IV (ginger- and isoproterenol-induced MI) | 56.49±2.40 | 32.66 | 0.001* | ||
*Significant compared to control group, **Significant. MI: Myocardial infarction, ANOVA: Analysis of variance, SD: Standard deviation, TNF-α: Tumor necrosis factor-alpha
Figure 4Tukey's test simultaneously with 95% confidence interval differences for tumor necrosis factor-alpha
Comparison of mean serum IL-6 (pg/ml) between study groups using t-test and analysis of variance
| Group | IL-6 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean±SD | ANOVA | ||||
| Group I (control group) | 38.78±1.14 | ||||
| Group II (ginger group) | 36.45±1.14 | 3.65 | 0.002 | 7362.62 | 0.001** |
| Group III (isoproterenol-induced MI) | 118.63±1.61 | 125.19 | 0.001* | ||
| Group IV (ginger- and isoproterenol-induced MI) | 76.99±1.71 | 59.91 | 0.001* | ||
*Significant compared to control group, **Significant. MI: Myocardial infarction, ANOVA: Analysis of variance, SD: Standard deviation, IL-6: Interleukin-6
Figure 5Tukey's test simultaneously with 95% confidence interval differences for serum interleukin-6
Comparison of mean heart tissue (mmol/g tissue) between study groups using t-test and ANOVA
| Group | Heart tissue NOx | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean±SD | ANOVA | ||||
| Group I (control group) | 21.81±1.11 | ||||
| Group II (ginger group) | 20.95±0.66 | 1.73 | 0.216 | 489.87 | 0.001** |
| Group III (isoproterenol-induced MI) | 37.83±1.39 | 32.29 | 0.001* | ||
| Group IV (ginger- and isoproterenol-induced MI) | 27.25±1.16 | 10.98 | 0.001* | ||
*Significant compared to control group, ** Significant. NOx: Nitrite and nitrate, MI: Myocardial infarction, ANOVA: Analysis of variance, SD: Standard deviation
Figure 6Tukey's test simultaneously with 95% confidence interval differences for heart tissue nitrite and nitrate
Comparison of the mean infarct surface area percentage between study groups using t-test and analysis of variance
| Group | Infarct surface area percentage | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean±SD | ANOVA | ||||
| Group I (control group) | 0.00±0.00 | ||||
| Group II (ginger group) | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 2388.16 | 0.001** |
| Group III (isoproterenol-induced MI) | 41.23±1.90 | 67.80 | 0.001* | ||
| Group IV (ginger- and isoproterenol-induced MI) | 29.72±1.95 | 48.88 | 0.001* | ||
*Significant compared to control group, **Significant. MI: Myocardial infarction, ANOVA: Analysis of variance, SD: Standard deviation
Figure 7Tukey's test simultaneously with 95% confidence interval differences for infarct surface area %