Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Ischemia–reperfusion (I/R) injury refers to a destructive process that can aggravate and sustain when damaged cells are reoxygenated following ischemia (hypoxia) in tissue. In this study, we aimed to investigate the protective effect of macelignan and its underlying mechanism in an experimental mesenteric I/R injury model in rats. </p> Methods <p>A total of 24 adult male Sprague–Dawley rats weighing 200 to 250&#xa0;g were randomly divided into four groups: control, sham, I/R group, and group receiving intravenous macelignan after ischemia (M). In all groups except the control group, the experimental protocol involved vascular clamping of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) for 45&#xa0;min, followed by a 240-min (4-h) reperfusion period after the removal of the vascular clamp. Macelignan was administered to the M group during the reperfusion phase. At the end of the study, blood and tissue samples were taken from the rats for biochemical and histopathological analyses.</p> Results <p>The mean serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and MDA levels showed statistically significant differences among the groups and were found to be at levels similar to the sham group in the M group (p &lt; 0.001 and p = 0.016, respectively). Among the oxidative and antioxidative parameters measured in tissue, total antioxidant status [TAS], total oxidant status [TOS], Oxidative stress index [OSI] showed statistically significant differences (p &lt; 0.05). A statistically significant difference was also observed in tissue nitric oxide [NO] levels, which were lower in the M group compared to the I/R group (p = 0.006). Histopathological analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the total intestinal injury score among the groups (p &lt; 0.001). However, no significant histological differences in intestinal damage were observed between the macelignan-treated group and the I/R group. </p> Conclusion <p>Our study results show favorable results regarding the antioxidative protective effects of macelignan on intestinal tissue subjected to mesenteric I/R injury. However, further research is needed to identify its benefits in humans.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Protective effects of macelignan against mesenteric ischemia–reperfusion injury: experimental study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月26日

查看全文
  • Emre Demir Benli,
  • Elif Coskun Sungur,
  • Levent Enver,
  • Fazlı Erdoğan

摘要

Introduction

Ischemia–reperfusion (I/R) injury refers to a destructive process that can aggravate and sustain when damaged cells are reoxygenated following ischemia (hypoxia) in tissue. In this study, we aimed to investigate the protective effect of macelignan and its underlying mechanism in an experimental mesenteric I/R injury model in rats.

Methods

A total of 24 adult male Sprague–Dawley rats weighing 200 to 250 g were randomly divided into four groups: control, sham, I/R group, and group receiving intravenous macelignan after ischemia (M). In all groups except the control group, the experimental protocol involved vascular clamping of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) for 45 min, followed by a 240-min (4-h) reperfusion period after the removal of the vascular clamp. Macelignan was administered to the M group during the reperfusion phase. At the end of the study, blood and tissue samples were taken from the rats for biochemical and histopathological analyses.

Results

The mean serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and MDA levels showed statistically significant differences among the groups and were found to be at levels similar to the sham group in the M group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.016, respectively). Among the oxidative and antioxidative parameters measured in tissue, total antioxidant status [TAS], total oxidant status [TOS], Oxidative stress index [OSI] showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). A statistically significant difference was also observed in tissue nitric oxide [NO] levels, which were lower in the M group compared to the I/R group (p = 0.006). Histopathological analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the total intestinal injury score among the groups (p < 0.001). However, no significant histological differences in intestinal damage were observed between the macelignan-treated group and the I/R group.

Conclusion

Our study results show favorable results regarding the antioxidative protective effects of macelignan on intestinal tissue subjected to mesenteric I/R injury. However, further research is needed to identify its benefits in humans.