| Literature DB >> 34711021 |
Jalal Aala1, Asghar Beigi Harchegani2, Hanieh Akhlaghi Monsef3, Zhaleh Mohsenifar4, Pirooz Ebrahimi5, Mohammad Reza Parvizi1.
Abstract
This study aimed to consider the expression of Nrf2, NLRP3 and caspase 1 genes, as well as oxidative stress, and the protective role of N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) in the liver of rats treated with cadmium (Cd). Male rats were randomly divided into five groups including G1 (control), G2 (single dose of Cd), G3 (continuous dose of Cd), G4 (single dose of Cd + NAC), and G5 (continuous dose of Cd + NAC). Levels of malondialdehyde (MDA) and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) were measured. Expression of Nrf2, NLRP3 and caspase 1 genes was considered using RT-PCR. NAC treatments significantly improved TAC, but decreased MDA values in rats that exposed to continuous dose of Cd (p<0.05). Exposure to continuous dose of Cd caused a significant decrease in Nrf2 expression by 2.46-fold (p<0.001), but enhanced expression of NLRP3 and Caspase 1 genes by 3.13-fold and 3.16-fold), respectively (p<0.001). Compared to rats that treated to continuous dose of Cd, NAC supplementation enhanced the expression of Nrf2 by 1.67-fold (p<0.001) and reduced the expression of NLRP3 and Caspase 1 genes by 1.39-fold (p<0.001) and 1.58-fold (p<0.001), respectively. Down-regulation of Nrf2 and overexpression of NLRP3 and caspase 1 seems to be one of the main mechanisms of Cd toxicity on liver tissue. NAC protects liver tissue against Cd-induced oxidative injuries via enhancement of Nrf2 expression and reduction of NLRP3 and caspase 1 genes.Entities:
Keywords: N-Acetyl cysteine; NLRP3 and caspase 1; Nrf2; antioxidants; cadmium; oxidative stress
Year: 2021 PMID: 34711021 PMCID: PMC8850162 DOI: 10.5620/eaht.2021024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Anal Health Toxicol ISSN: 2671-9525
Figure 1Sections of liver tissue from different groups. The liver of rats in control (G1) has no sign of inflammation, while sections from rats in single (G2) and continuous group (G3) showed elevated inflammatory cells. Also some apoptotic cells can be seen in continuous group (G3). Combined therapy with NAC declined number of inflammatory cells along with mild inflammation in Cd exposed groups (G4 and G5). ×40 magnification.
Comparison of the mean of FRAP and MDA between groups.
| Groups | FRAP (μg/mL) | MDA (μg/mL) |
|---|---|---|
| G1 | 517.09±18.06 | 15.71±1.09 |
| G2 | 502.87±23.34 | 17.39±2.21 |
| G3 | 288.86±38.66 | 38.97±3.25 |
| G4 | 522.43±21.31 | 15.41±1.24 |
| G5 | 431.77±31.85 | 26.89±2.54 |
| p-value | p<0.001 | p<0.001 |
G1: Control; G1: Single Cd; G3: Continuous Cd; G4: Single Cd + NAC; G5: Continuous Cd + Cd; One-Way ANOVA: Post Hoc-Tukey test was applied to compare mean value of parameters between all groups.
p<0.001 compared to G1.
Figure 2Comparison of the mean of Cd levels in the serum of rats in different groups. One-Way ANOVA: Post Hoc-Tukey test was applied to compare mean value of Cd between all groups. *p<0.001 compared to control group.
Figure 3Comparison of the mean of Cd levels in the liver of rats in different groups. One-Way ANOVA: Post Hoc-Tukey test was applied to compare mean value of Cd between all groups. *p<0.001 compared to control group.
Comparison of the fold change ratio of the Nrf2 expression.
| Fold-change ratio | Up-/down-regulation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Single vs control | 1.16 | Down-regulated | 0.074 |
| Continuous vs control | 2.46 | Down-regulated | <0.001 |
| NAC + single vs control | 1.08 | Up-regulated | 0.46 |
| NAC + continuous vs control | 1.47 | Down-regulated | <0.05 |
| Continuous vs Single | 2.11 | Down-regulated | <0.001 |
| Single vs NAC + continuous | 1.26 | Up-regulated | 0.015 |
| Single + NAC vs single | 1.26 | Up-regulated | 0.012 |
| Single + NAC vs continuous | 2.67 | Up-regulated | <0.001 |
| Single + NAC vs NAC + continuous | 1.60 | Up-regulated | <0.001 |
| Continuous + NAC vs continuous | 1.67 | Up-regulated | <0.001 |
p<0.05 is considered as significant; One-Way ANOVA: Post Hoc-Tukey test was applied to compare mean value of Nrf2 expression pattern between all groups.
Figure 4Comparison of the normalized expression of Nrf2 between different groups. One-Way ANOVA: Post Hoc-Tukey test was applied to compare normalized expression of Nrf2 between all groups. *p<0.001 compared to control group.
Comparison of the fold change ratio of the NLRP3 expression
| Fold-change ratio | Up-/down-regulation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Single vs control | 1.30 | Up-regulated | 0.012 |
| Continuous vs control | 3.13 | Up-regulated | <0.001 |
| NAC + single vs control | 1.10 | Up-regulated | 0.73 |
| NAC + continuous vs control | 2.26 | Up-regulated | <0.001 |
| Continuous vs Single | 2.40 | Up-regulated | <0.001 |
| Single vs NAC + continuous | 1.73 | Down-regulated | <0.001 |
| Single + NAC vs single | 1.18 | Down-regulated | 0.16 |
| Single + NAC vs continuous | 2.84 | Down-regulated | <0.001 |
| Single + NAC vs NAC + continuous | 2.04 | Down-regulated | <0.001 |
| Continuous + NAC vs continuous | 1.39 | Down-regulated | <0.001 |
p<0.05 is considered as significant; One-Way ANOVA: Post Hoc-Tukey test was applied to compare mean value of NLRP3 expression pattern between all groups.
Figure 5Comparison of the normalized expression of NLRP3 between different groups. One-Way ANOVA: Post Hoc-Tukey test was applied to compare normalized expression of NLRP3 between all groups. *p<0.001 and **p<0.05 compared to control group.
Comparison of the fold change ratio of the caspase1 expression
| Fold-change ratio | Up-/down-regulation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Single vs control | 1.43 | Up-regulated | 0.09 |
| Continuous vs control | 3.16 | Up-regulated | <0.001 |
| NAC + single vs control | 1.23 | Up-regulated | 0.62 |
| NAC + continuous vs control | 2.00 | Up-regulated | <0.001 |
| Continuous vs Single | 2.22 | Up-regulated | <0.001 |
| Single vs NAC + continuous | 1.40 | Down-regulated | 0.011 |
| Single + NAC vs single | 1.16 | Down-regulated | 0.73 |
| Single + NAC vs continuous | 2.58 | Down-regulated | <0.001 |
| Single + NAC vs NAC + continuous | 1.63 | Down-regulated | 0.001 |
| Continuous + NAC vs continuous | 1.58 | Down-regulated | <0.001 |
p<0.05 is considered as significant; One-Way ANOVA: Post Hoc-Tukey test was applied to compare mean value of caspase 1 expression pattern between all groups.
Figure 6Comparison of the normalized expression of Caspase 1 between different groups. One-Way ANOVA: Post Hoc-Tukey test was applied to compare normalized expression of Caspase 1 between all groups. *p<0.001 compared to control group.