| Literature DB >> 36072257 |
Abdullah Almilaibary1, Eman A A Abdallah1,2, Mohamed F El-Refaei1,3.
Abstract
Chromium (Cr) is a common environmental pollutant that has wide-ranging toxic manifestations. Fagonia indica (F. indica) is an herbal medicine with anti-inflammatory properties and antioxidant activity. This study aims to evaluate the protective role of F. indica (whole plant) in attenuating Cr-induced nephrotoxicity in Swiss mice. Swiss albino mice were divided into five groups (10 mice in each): group I (control); group II (F. indica-treated); group III (Cr-intoxicated); group IV (Cr- and saline-intoxicated); and group V (Cr-intoxicated and F. indica-treated). Blood samples were drawn after sacrifice for biochemical examinations. Kidney specimens were collected to examine antioxidant activities and conduct histological and immunohistochemical studies for all groups. Mice intoxicated with Cr at 15 mg/kg/b.wt showed a decrease in superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione S-transferase (GST), and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) levels compared to the control group, followed by an elevation in the serum IL-6 level. The data revealed severe damage to the renal tubular epithelial cells as well as marked congestion and positive, diffuse, and strong expression of caspase-3 in the dilated tubules. Additionally, the data disclosed an increase in the serum level of blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine in group III compared with group I. Group V, treated with F. indica at a selected dose of 120 mg/kg/b.wt, showed an improvement in antioxidant activity, attenuation of the IL-6 level, fewer histopathological disturbances, and a statistically significant decrease in the serum level of BUN and creatinine compared with group III. Such changes may be attributed to the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects of F. indica. Therefore, our investigation revealed that F. indica effectively protects against Cr-induced nephrotoxicity.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; Chromium toxicity; Herbal medicine; Pro-inflammatory cytokines
Year: 2022 PMID: 36072257 PMCID: PMC9441309 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10373
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Effect of F. indica on SOD, GST and GSH-Px levels (U/g) wet tissue in mice different groups.
| Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | Group V | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOD (U/g) | 56.42 ± .64 | 54.36 ± .96∗ | 27.52 ± .78∗# | 28.22 ± .71∗# | 48.36 ± .76∗#¶€ |
| GST (U/g) | 63.16 ± 1.26 | 60.89 ± 1.74∗ | 30.42 ± 1.04∗# | 30.74 ± 1.01∗# | 58.92 ± .78∗#¶€ |
| GSH-Px (U/g) | 80.04 ± .79 | 79.35 ± 1.31 | 43.42 ± .78∗# | 43.63 ± 1.02∗# | 72.23 ± 1.22∗#¶€ |
Data expressed as mean ± SD, significance <0.05.
∗: significance vs Group I., #: significance vs Group II., ¶: significance vs Group III., €: significance vs Group IV.
Effect of F. indica on serum BUN and creatinine levels (mg/dl) in mice different groups.
| Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | Group V | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUN (mg/dl) | 24.71 ± .43 | 24.89 ± .38 | 50.01 ± .62 | 50.56 ± .89 | 26.80 ± .41 |
| Creatinine (mg/dl) | 0.82 ± .09 | .84 ± .05 | 2.34 ± .08 | 2.34 ± .07 | .95 ± .05 |
Data expressed as mean ± SD, significance <0.05.
∗: significance vs Group I., #: significance vs Group II., ¶: significance vs Group III., €: significance vs Group IV.
Effect of F. indica on serum Il-6 level (pg/ml), in mice different groups.
| Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | Group V | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Il-6 (pg/ml) | 19.3 ± 1.2 | 21.1 ± .6 | 41.4 ± .9 | 41.1 ± 1.2 | 22.8 ± .6 |
Data expressed as mean ± SD, significance <0.05.
∗: significance vs Group I., #: significance vs Group II., ¶: significance vs Group III., €: significance vs Group IV.
Figure 1Correlations of IL-6 with (A) Il-6 (pg/ml) vs SOD (U/g), (B) Il-6 (pg/ml) vs GST (U/g), (C) Il-6 (pg/ml) vs GSH-Px (U/g), (D) Il-6 (pg/ml) vs BUN (mg/dl), (E) Il-6 (pg/ml) vs creatinine (mg/dl).
Figure 2Immunohistochemical staining caspase-3 in kidney. (A, B) section from control kidney and F. indica treated kidney (groups I, II) showing negative expression (no immune-reactive cells) (×200). (C, D) section from group III (Chromium-intoxicated) & IV (Chromium-intoxicated and saline) showing diffuse strong expression in dilated tubules, glomerulus and interstitial cells. (×200). (E) section from group V (Chromium-intoxicated treated F. indica) showing weak patchy (focal) expression in kidney tubules and interstitial cells (×200).
The quantified comparison of immunohistochemical staining in mice different groups.
| Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | Group V | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent area | 0 + 0 | 0 + 0 | 24.14 ± 4.78∗# | 22.14 ± 5.65∗# | 7.23 ± 1.31∗#¶€ |
Data expressed as mean ± SD significance <0.05.
∗: significance vs Group I., #: significance vs Group II., ¶: significance vs Group III.
Figure 3Histopathological examination of the kidney showing (A, B) section from control kidney and F. indica treated kidney (group I & II) showing normal glomeruli (red arrow) and tubules (black arrow) (H&E ×200). (c) section from group III (Chromium-intoxicated) showing severely damaged renal tubular epithelial cells (red arrow) and marked congestion (white arrow) (H&E ×200). (D) section from group IV (Chromium-intoxicated and saline) showing severely renal severe interstitial congestion and hemorrhage (red arrows) (H&E ×200). (E) section from group V showing mild hydropic generation of renal tubular epithelial (red arrow) (H&E ×200). (F) section from group V (Chromium-intoxicated treated F. indica) showing renal tubular epithelial hyperplasia with regenerative changes (black arrows) (H&E ×200).
The quantified comparison of histopathological staining in mice different groups.
| Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | Group V | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent area of renal tubules (%) | 13.60 ± 3.22 | 12.56 ± 2.87 | 52.11 ± 11.46∗# | 49.32 ± 10.21∗# | 16.79 ± 4.38¶€ |
| Perimeter of Renal Glomerulus (pixels) | 143818.3 ± 28764.85 | 137349.6 ± 23470.42 | 52078.1 ± 10416.37∗# | 48128.1 ± 9627.41∗# | 94344.9 ± 18869.44∗#¶€ |
| Area of Renal Glomerulus (pixels) | 1514.7 ± 302.93 | 1333.4 ± 266.76 | 922.1 ± 104.4∗# | 910.7 ± 97.6∗# | 1230.8 ± 96.90¶€ |
Data expressed as mean ± SD, significance <0.05.
∗: significance vs Group I., #: significance vs Group II., ¶: significance vs Group III.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of the experimental design.