Skip to main content
. 2023 Apr 3;14:1117683. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1117683

TABLE 2.

Effect of salsalate treatment on hepatic oxidative stress parameters in Wistar control and prediabetic HHTg rats.

Wistar Wistar + SAL HHTg HHTg + SAL PS PT PI
TBARS, nmol/mgprot 1.32 ± 0.13 1.22 ± 0.12 1.64 ± 0.10$ 1.20 ± 0.06## n.s. 0.05 n.s.
Conjugated dienes, nmol/mgprot 32.0 ± 2.4 28.6 ± 2.2 41.6 ± 2.4$$ 28.8 ± 1.2### 0.05 0.001 0.05
GSH, μmol/mgprot 68.61 ± 4.33 71.31 ± 4.94 62.89 ± 2.56 73.06 ± 2.96# n.s. 0.05 n.s.
GSSG, μmol/mgprot 1.11 ± 0.10 1.27 ± 0.10 1.74 ± 0.16$$ 1.22 ± 0.10## 0.05 n.s. 0.01
GSH/GSSG 62.86 ± 3.11 56.97 ± 2.65 37.49 ± 3.10$$$ 63.20 ± 6.12### 0.05 0.05 0.01
SOD, U/mgprot 0.16 ± 0.01 0.17 ± 0.01 0.11 ± 0.01$$ 0.14 ± 0.01# 0.01 0.05 n.s.
GPx, μmol NADPH/min/mgprot 276 ± 28 259 ± 20 222 ± 10 301 ± 27# n.s. n.s. 0.05
GR, nmol NADPH/min/mgprot 166 ± 13 210 ± 29 133 ± 12 136 ± 13 0.01 n.s. n.s.

Two-way ANOVA, results; PS, denotes the significance of Wistar vs. HHTg (strain effects), PT, denotes the significance of salsalate (treatment effects); PI, denotes the significance of salsalate in both strains (treatment vs. strain interaction). For multiple comparisons Fisher’s LSD, post hoc test was used; * denotes significance reflecting the effect of Wistar vs. Wistar + SAL, # denotes significance reflecting the effect of HHTg vs. HHTg + SAL, $ denotes significance reflecting the effect of Wistar vs. HHTg, n.s. denotes not significant; # p˂0.05, ## p˂0.01, ### p < 0.001; $ p˂0.05, $$ p˂0.01, $$$ p˂0.001. Data are mean ± SEM; n = 8 for each group. HHTg, hereditary hypertriglyceridemic rats; GSH, glutathione; GSSG, oxidized form of glutathione; SOD, superoxide dismutase; GPx, glutathioneperoxidase; GR, glutathione reductase; TBARS, thiobarbituric acid-reactive substance.