| Literature DB >> 35739960 |
Chryssa Bekiari1, Fotios Tekos2, Zoi Skaperda2, Aikaterini Argyropoulou3, Alexios-Leandros Skaltsounis3, Demetrios Kouretas2, Anastasia Tsingotjidou1.
Abstract
Oxaliplatin is a widely used chemotherapeutic agent. Despite its many beneficial aspects in fighting many malignancies, it shares an aversive effect of neuropathy. Many substances have been used to limit this oxaliplatin-driven neuropathy in patients. This study evaluates the neuroprotective role of a grape pomace extract (GPE) into an oxaliplatin induced neuropathy in rats. For this reason, following the delivery of the substance into the animals prior to or simultaneously with oxaliplatin, their performance was evaluated by behavioral tests. Blood tests were also performed for the antioxidant activity of the extract, along with a histological and pathological evaluation of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) cells as the major components of the neuropathy. All behavioral tests were corrected following the use of the grape pomace. Oxidative stressors were also limited with the use of the extract. Additionally, the morphometrical analysis of the DRG cells and their immunohistochemical phenotype revealed the fidelity of the animal model and the changes into the parvalbumin and GFAP concentration indicative of the neuroprotective role of the pomace. In conclusion, the grape pomace extract with its antioxidant properties alleviates the harmful effects of the oxaliplatin induced chronic neuropathy in rats.Entities:
Keywords: DRG; GFAP; behavioral tests; grape pomace; oxaliplatin; parvalbumin; peripheral neuropathy; rat
Year: 2022 PMID: 35739960 PMCID: PMC9219719 DOI: 10.3390/antiox11061062
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Figure 1Diagram depicting the experimental protocol and the time points of the measurements.
(−) LC-HRMS of the grape extract.
| Rt (min) | Compounds | Theoretical [M-H]−
| Experimental [M-H]−
| Molecular Formula | RDBeq. | Delta (ppm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.75 | Gluconic acid | 195.0510 | 195.0511 | C6H12O7 | 1.5 | 0.50 |
| 2 | 1.10 | Gallic acid | 169.0142 | 169.0145 | C7H6O5 | 5.5 | 1.32 |
| 3 | 1.90 | Protocatechuic acid | 153.0193 | 153.0195 | C7H6O4 | 5.5 | 1.29 |
| 4 | 2.17 | Dihydroxybenzoic acid hexoside isomer 1 | 315.0722 | 315.0724 | C13H16O9 | 6.5 | 0.84 |
| 5 | 3.01 | Procyanidin B1 or B2 | 577.1351 | 577.135 | C30H26O12 | 18.5 | −0.20 |
| 6 | 3.03/3.34 | Caffeic acid hexoside | 341.0878 | 341.087 | C15H18O9 | 7.5 | −2.36 |
| 7 | 3.17 | Caffeoyltartaric acid | 311.0409 | 311.041 | C13H12O9 | 8.5 | 0.30 |
| 8 | 3.24 | 2-Isopropylmalic acid | 175.0612 | 175.0612 | C7H12O5 | 2.5 | 0.10 |
| 9 | 3.32 | Catechin or Epicatechin | 289.0718 | 289.0717 | C15H14O6 | 9.5 | −0.03 |
| 10 | 3.67 | Coumaric acid hexoside isomer 1 | 325.0929 | 325.093 | C15H18O8 | 7.5 | 0.49 |
| 11 | 3.69 | Caffeic acid | 179.035 | 179.0352 | C9H8O4 | 6.5 | 1.50 |
| 12 | 3.71 | Procyanidin B1 or B2 | 577.1351 | 577.1352 | C30H26O12 | 18.5 | 0.07 |
| 13 | 3.79 | Coumaroyltartaric acid isomer 1 | 295.0459 | 295.0461 | C13H12O8 | 8.5 | 0.37 |
| 14 | 3.90 | Ferulic acid pentoside | 325.0929 | 325.093 | C15H18O8 | 7.5 | 0.39 |
| 15 | 3.93 | Catechin or Epicatechin | 289.0718 | 289.0718 | C15H14O6 | 9.5 | 0.27 |
| 16 | 4.38 | Myricetin-3- | 479.0831 | 479.0828 | C21H20O13 | 12.5 | −0.67 |
| 17 | 4.49 | Syringic acid | 197.0455 | 197.0456 | C9H10O5 | 5.5 | 0.32 |
| 18 | 4.80 | Isoquercitrin | 463.0882 | 463.0881 | C21H20O12 | 12.5 | −0.20 |
| 19 | 4.85 | Quercetin 3- | 477.0675 | 477.0675 | C21H18O13 | 13.5 | 0.07 |
| 20 | 5.59 | p-Hydroxybenzoic acid | 137.0244 | 137.0245 | C7H6O3 | 5.5 | 0.31 |
| 21 | 5.20 | Isorhamnetin 3-glucoside | 477.1038 | 477.1038 | C22H22O12 | 12.5 | −0.12 |
| 22 | 6.22 | Quercetin | 301.0354 | 301.0356 | C15H10O7 | 11.5 | 0.57 |
| 23 | 6.94 | Kaempferol | 285.0405 | 285.0408 | C15H10O6 | 11.5 | 1.08 |
Table demonstrating the parameters tested through different examinations, their validation and scaling.
| FOB Test | Tested Parameter | Validation | Scale |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Body position | General condition, pain | R | 1 to 3 |
| Respiration | Respiration rate, weakness | R | 1 to 6 |
| Vocalization | Pain | Y/N | |
| Palpebral closure | R | 1 to 3 | |
|
| |||
| Reactivity | R | 1 to 5 | |
| Handling | R | 1 to 4 | |
| Palpebral closure | R | 1 to 3 | |
|
| |||
| Number of rearings | Exploratory activity | N | |
| Gait | Posture | R | 1 to 6 |
| Arousal | Activity over time | R | 1 to 6 |
| Defecations number | Autonomic system function | N | |
| Diarrhea | Autonomic system function | Y/N | |
| Urinations number | Autonomic system function | N | |
| Stereotypical behavior | Y/N | ||
|
| |||
| Approach response | R | 1 to 4 | |
| Touch response | R | 1 to 4 | |
| Eyelid reflex | Y/N | ||
| Sound response | R | 1 to 3 | |
| Tail pinch response | Pain response/locomotion | R | 1 to 4 |
| Righting reflex | Proprioception | R | 1 to 4 |
| Contact placing response | Corticospinal system function/Proprioception | R | 0 to 2 |
| Crossed extensor reflex | Corticospinal system function/Proprioception | R | 1 to 2 |
|
| |||
| Footprint/gait analysis | |||
| Stride length | Ataxia, coordination, locomotion | M | |
| Stride width | Base of support, locomotion | M | |
| Foot rotation (R) | Sciatic nerve function | M | |
| Foot rotation (L) | Sciatic nerve function | M | |
| Interpedal distance | Ataxia, coordination, locomotion | M | |
| Landing foot splay | Vestibular and proprioceptive sensation/motor efferent fibres | M | |
| Grip strength | Touch and proprioceptive sensation/motor efferent fibres | M | |
| Sticky paper | Touch receptors/motor efferent fibres | M | |
| Von Frey hair pinch test | Mechanoreceptors, pain receptors/motor efferent fibres | M | |
(R = ranking system, M = measured value, Y/N = Yes or No declaration).
Figure 2Photograph of the white paper showing marks of the hind (blue) and front (red) paws of five sequential steps for the evaluation of animal’s stride width, stride length and rotation of the right and left hind limb. Interpedal distance was calculated as described in the text.
Mean body weight of each group at four studied time points.
| Group | Pre-Treatment | Mid-Treatment | End-Treatment | Post-Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 213 ± 15.62 | 228 ± 12.5 | 225 ± 9.75 | 232 ± 9.3 |
|
| 196 ± 10.77 | 201 ± 11.77 | 207 ± 11.79 | 221 ± 4.3 |
|
| 226 ± 10.77 | 220 ± 10.25 | 218 ± 10.07 | 227 ± 15.46 |
|
| 199 ± 1.05 | 202 ± 10.9 | 192.5 ± 7.77 | 212.5 ± 6 |
Effect of oxaliplatin with and without GPE treatment on gait analysis measurements at the end of oxaliplatin administration.
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foot rotation R | 7.9 ± 1.63 | 11.15 ± 1.63 | 8.3 ± 1.4 | 11.68 ± 1.44 |
| Foot rotation L | 10.7 ± 1.9 | 11.85 ± 1.9 | 11.57 ± 1.6 | 12.51 ± 1.65 |
| Stride length R | 10.65 ± 0.44 | 11.08 ± 0.35 | 11.03 ± 0.3 | 10.9 ± 0.33 |
| Stride length L | 10.81 ± 0.42 | 11.04 ± 0.32 | 10.98 ± 0.34 | 11.33 ± 0.29 |
| Stride width | 4.49 ± 0.2 | 4.35 ± 0.21 | 4.15 ± 0.16 | 4.13 ± 0.17 |
| Interpedal distance | 5.47 ± 0.2 | 5.5 ± 0.19 | 5.5 ± 0.15 | 5.48 ± 0.16 |
Values of the four sensorimotor tasks employed for all animal groups at the end of the oxaliplatin treatment period for the evaluation of the oxaliplatin treatment and the consecutive GPE administration (N.S. = not statistically significantly different).
| Sensorimotor Tasks | Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landing foot splay (cm) | 3.99 ± 0.5 | 4.35 ± 0.34 | 4.43 ± 0.29 | 4.58 ± 0.28 | N.S. |
| Grip strength (N) | 3.11 ± 0.18 * | 2.81 ± 0.18 **/*** | 3.4 ± 0.15 ** | 3.53 ± 0.15 */*** | * |
| Sticky paper (sec) | 157.7 ± 24 | 124.9 ± 24.3 | 126.8 ± 19 | 161.1 ± 18.5 | N.S. |
| Von Frey hair pinch test (grams) | 0.40 ± 0.0 * | 1.04 ± 0.3 */**/*** | 0.43 ± 0.03 | 0.42 ± 0.02 | * |
Figure 3Mean grams of applied Von Frey hair filaments that elicited a positive touch response of the hind limb in experimental rats during all examined time periods (Group A = 1; Group B = 2; Group C = 3; Group D = 4).
TAC and TBARS levels in control group (group A) and animals treated with oxaliplatin only (group B) or oxaliplatin and GPE (group C, D).
| TAC | SEM | TBARS | SEM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| group A | 0.77 | 0.048 | 48.4 | 2.11 |
| group B | 0.77 | 0.006 | 40.3 | 1.07 |
| group C | 0.79 | 0.076 | 47.8 | 5.14 |
| group D | 0.67 | 0.012 | 40.4 | 4.68 |
Morphometrical results of the DRG neurons.
| Morphometric Parameters | Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total DRG Neuron Number c | 14.138 ± 1.590.37 | 17.020 ± 2.278.97 | 15.090 ± 2.0000 | 16.782 ± 1.194.75 | N.S. |
| Large DRG neurons b | 10.4% | 2.8% | 3.3% | 3.8% | - |
| Medium DRG neurons b | 30.8% | 24.1% | 21.2% | 26% | - |
| Small DRG neurons b | 58.8% | 73.2% | 75.6% | 70.2% | - |
| Mean somatic Area (μm2) a | 526.96 ± 4.24 * | 390.94 ± 2.48 */** | 393.92 ± 3.39 | 428.87 ± 2.82 ** | *,** |
| Area of Large DRG neurons (μm2) a | 1.322.18 ± 10.54 */** | 1.196.91 ± 12.48 */*** | 1.275.81 ± 21.35 *** | 1.237.48 ± 13.27 ** | *,** |
| Diameter a | 24.13 ± 0.48 */** | 20.43 ± 0.79 * | 20.32 ± 0.65 ** | 21.49 ± 0.38 | *,** |
| Perimeter a | 86.25 ± 1.61 | 71.97 ± 2.44 | 72.19 ± 3.21 | 75.26 ± 1.88 | *,** |
a Data expressed as Mean Values ± S.E.M; b Data expressed as Percentages %; c Mean values after the use of c.f., N.S. = not statistically significant.
Figure 4Microphotographs of experimental groups’ DRGs. Note the significant difference in mean DRG neurons somatic area between group B and group C and D animals (a) ×20 and the increased satellite cells infiltration in group B DRGs compared to group C and D (b) ×40. (scale bar = 50 μm).
Figure 5Microphotographs of experimental groups’ DRGs. On the left, the images are showing GFAP, while the right panel shows parvalbumin immunohistochemistry staining (×10).
Figure 6Microphotographs showing double (merged) staining of parvalbumin (green) and GFAP (red) immunohistochemistry staining (×20) in all experimental groups. Note the heavily GFAP stained satellite cells (white arrows) for the oxaliplatin treated (Group B) animals.