Graphical abstract
Abbreviations: ACE, angiotensin converting enzyme; ARB, angiotensin-II type 1 receptor (AT1) blockers; AT1, angiotensin-II type 1 receptor; AT2, angiotensin-II type 2 receptor; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; CCB, calcium (Ca2+) channel blocker; CKD, chronic kidney disease; EDTA, ethylene diamine tetra acetate; Hb, hemoglobin; HCT, hematocrit; HDL, high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein; MCH, mean corpuscular hemoglobin; MCV, mean corpuscular volume; MCHC, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration; RBC, red blood cells; RBS, random blood sugar; RDW-CV, red blood cell distribution width-CV; RDW-SD, red blood cell distribution width-SD; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SGPT, serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase; SGOT, serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase; TG, triglycerides
Keywords: Renoprotective effects, Gentamycin-induced, Nephrotoxicity, Stevia, ARB, CCB
Highlights
-
•
Renoprotective effect of stevia.
-
•
Comparative effects of Stevia, ARBs and CCB on renal functions.
-
•
Research on Stevia and find out the beneficial treatment option for renal damage.
Abstract
The current study investigated the renoprotective effects of stevia, angiotensin-II type 1 receptor (AT1) blocker and calcium (Ca2+) channel blocker in gentamycin-induced nephrotoxicity in rat models. Six groups of male Sprague-Dawley rats of eight weeks old were taken for the experiment: sham control, nephrotoxicity, treatment with amlodipine (4 mg/kg/day); stevia (200 mg/kg/day); losartan (15 mg/kg/day) and valsartan (5 mg/kg/day), accordingly. The blood sample was taken for the assessment of renal and hepatic-functional variables like serum creatinine, blood urea, BUN and SGPT, SGOT, and total serum bilirubin. Hematological parameters were also examined. Histological examination has been done on kidneys and liver. Alterations of the body weight and the organ’s weight were documented. Treatment with stevia and valsartan significantly decreased serum creatinine levels. A reduction of liver enzymes, and total serum bilirubin levels were observed in all the treatment groups. Treatment with valsartan and amlodipine, remarkably and stevia, mildly reduced the renal tissue damage, inflammation, and tubular necrosis. However, the present study demonstrated that losartan treatment aggravated kidney damage by increasing protein cast, calcification, tubular necrosis, and injury. This comparison indicated that both stevia and valsartan have beneficial renoprotective effect and valsartan offers a better treatment option in renal damage over losartan.
1. Introduction
Worldwide, the prevalence of kidney disease and the metabolic syndrome is becoming a significant medical concern and public health burden. Stevia, Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni, a sweet herb indigenous to South America, confirmed promising results as the remedy of diabetes, hypertension, sexual dysfunction and other metabolic disorders [1,2]. Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory are the common effects of stevia, which help to lessen the cardiovascular and metabolic disorders [3]. Stevioside and rebaudioside are the main active constituents of stevia and are responsible for antidiabetic, antihypertensive and antioxidant activity [4]. Since cardiovascular disease and diabetes are closely associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD), it has up raised the interest to investigate the renoprotective effect of stevia in CKD.
A strong and consistent relationship has been established between lipid peroxidation products of oxidative stress and nephrotoxicity by a number of studies [5,6]. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced by antineoplastic agents facilitate cytotoxicity, for example - cisplatin-induced nephro- and neurotoxicity, doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity, which in turn reduce the efficacy of these drugs in treating cancer [7]. Antioxidants play significant beneficial role in ameliorating cytotoxicity such as grape seed extract improved homodynamic balance in scarboplatin and thalidomide-induced neuro- and nephrotoxicity [5]. Extract of Indian gooseberry leaves demonstrated antioxidant and renoprotective effect in cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity [8]. Moreover, contrast media-induced organ toxicity specially nephrotoxicity is one of the major concerns nowadays [6,9]. Again, natural products with antioxidant and free radical scavenging ability have the potential benefiacial effect in the prevention and treatment of organ toxicity.
Potential nephroprotective effects of Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS) inhibitors in drug induced nephrotoxicity have been documented in several studies [10]. ARB, such as losartan and valsartan are unique due to their high affinity for AT1 receptors and less dissociation from the binding sites [11]. Losartan was reported to show an antioxidant effect and decreased renin production by inhibiting AT1 induced vasoconstriction and showed a nephroprotective effect in chronic cyclosporins induced nephrotoxicity [12].
Amlodipine, a calcium (Ca2+) channel blocker, showed antithrombotic, and antiatherosclerotic effects, were not dependent on modulation of L-Type calcium channels [13]. Relaxation of arteriolar smooth muscle and decreasing the peripheral vascular resistance can reduce the blood pressure due to the action of CCB [14]. The protective effects of CCBs against gentamycin-induced nephrotoxicity is assumed to be mediated through the inhibition of intracellular calcium release [10,[15], [16], [17]]. However, insufficient information is available about the effect of CCB in gentamycin-induced nephrotoxicity.
In clinical practice, Gentamycin – an aminoglycoside antibiotic, is the drug of choice for gram-negative bacterial infections due to its therapeutic efficacy against bacterial strains resistant to other antibiotics [18]. Nephrotoxicity is the major complication of this drug. Only 10–15% of cases were found to treat with gentamycin with renal dysfunction [19]. In recent years, once daily dosage regimen, effective observation and monitoring of the patients for gentamycin-induced risks factors have contributed to increase the clinical uses of this drug [18].
Gentamycin-induced nephrotoxicity is widely used in rodent model which produces proximal tubular necrosis similar to human subjects [10,20]. In last two decades, various parameters of aminoglycoside-induced nephrotoxicity have been researched [21]. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) play the leading role in nephrotoxicity caused by the extensive accumulations of gentamycin in the kidney tissue [9,10,15]. Again, gentamycin increased intracellular calcium concentration causing mesengial cell contraction, in turn, can induce the renin-angiotensin system, resulting in the formation of many vasoconstrictor substances like angiotensin II, endothelin I, and thromboxane A2 [10,15,16].
Gentamycin demonstrated relevant and reversible acute renal injury and produce nephrotoxicity biomarkers similar to other nephrotoxic agents in animals [22]. Moreover, previous results demonstrated that gentamycin did not potentiate renal damage caused by streptozotocin or the disease diabetes; rather reduced renal dysfunction and less tubular injury were observed in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats [23].
A large-scale of population globally uses herbs and natural products for the treatment of different diseases. Stevia is widely used as a natural sweetener having a beneficial effect on diabetes and hypertension. Previous study demonstrated that stevia ameliorated cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity through reduction of inflammation and oxidative stress [24]. However, the outcomes of the treatment of stevia on gentamycin-induced nephrotoxicity are yet to be published. Furthermore, initial results of our clinical study showed that stevia improved the biochemical parameters like serum creatinine and serum uric acid levels in CKD patients [25].
Therefore, the present study explored the potential renoprotective effect of stevia on gentamycin-induced nephrotoxicity in rat models through biochemical, hematological and histological examination. This study also compared the effect of stevia, amlodipine, losartan, and valsartan in the progression and treatment of renal damage in these animal models.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental animal care & experiment design
Eight weeks old thirty-six male Sprague-Dawley rats (180–200 g m) were assigned in this study. These rats were adapted in standard laboratory settings for one week prior to the study. Room temperature of (22 ± 3 °C), and a humidity of 50 ± 10% with a 12 -h light/dark cycles was maintained. Standard pellet diet and drinking water ad libitum was provided to the rats. In this study, the selected animals were handled in absolute compliance and in accordance with the guidelines for the care and use of Laboratory Animals by the National Institute of Health and the study was approved by the Biosafety, Biosecurity and Ethics Committee of Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh [Ethic approval no: BBEC, JU/M 2019 (1)6]. This project was jointly carried out in the Division of Pharmacology of Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India and Pharmacology Laboratory of Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Bangladesh.
The dose of stevia was selected from the study of Yesmine et al. [26], which reported that stevia 200 mg/kg/day once daily (p.o) demonstrated beneficial effect in the prevention of vascular and gastrointestinal damage in diabetic rats. Moreover, other studies showed that stevia given at 100 and 200 mg/kg (iv/ip) produced an antihypertensive effect [27,28]. Stevioside given at 100 and 200 mg/kg (ip) caused slow and persistent lowering of blood pressure in hypertensive rats [27]. Therefore, stevia 200 mg/kg/day might provide an optimum dose to achieve an effective plasma concentration in rats. The dose of losartan was chosen according to the study of Álvarez et al. [29], which showed that losartan (15 mg/kg/day) prevented oxidative stress and decreased lipid peroxidation in hypertension in rats. A study by Gasparo et al. [30], reported that valsartan (5 or 50 mg/kg) or in combination with enalapril, demonstrated protective effect on renal function. This study also demonstrated that non-hypotensive doses of valsartan and enalapril combination increased survival of spontaneously hypertensive rats with endothelial dysfunction. Therefore, valsartan 5 mg/kg/day was chosen in our study to observe the renoprotective effect.
Nephrotoxicity was induced by gentamycin (100 mg/kg body weight/day; i.p.) for 8 days. The animals were randomly divided into six groups; and six rats in each group-(i) sham control without nephrotoxicity (CON); (ii) standard group with nephrotoxicity followed by 0.09% NaCl solution (i.p.), (STD) once daily; (iii) nephrotoxicity treated with stevia (200 mg/kg/day; p.o.) (STV); (iv) nephrotoxicity treated with losartan (15 mg/kg/day, p.o.) (LOS); (v) nephrotoxicity treated with valsartan (5 mg/kg/day, p.o.) (VAS); (vi) nephrotoxicity treated with amlodipine (4 mg/kg/day, p.o.) (AML). All the treatments were carried out for 30 days, starting at 4 days before the gentamycin injection. Weekly measurement of body weight of all the animals was done during the experimental period.
2.2. Chemicals and reagents
The stevia plant material was collected from Burudi Gram, Purulia, West Bengal, India. It was processed and HPLC-verified in Raipur Rani, Panchkula (HR), India. Stevia powder contains Rebaudioside A-82% and Stevioside-18%. Amlodipine (Amlodipine besylate) (CAS No.: 111470–99-6), Losartan (Losartan potassium) (CAS No.: 124750–99-8), Valsartan (CAS No.: 137862–53–4), Gentamycin sulfate (CAS No.: 1405–41-0), and the source was Sigma-Aldrich Co., Germany.
2.3. Blood collection and serum separation
After the 30 days treatment period, an overdose of sodium pentobarbital (60 mg/kg; i.p.) was used to euthanize the experimental animals. Blood samples were collected via posterior venacava into EDTA (ethylene diamine tetra acetate) tubes for hematological tests and mixed properly to avoid clotting and tubes without EDTA for biochemical analysis, and reserved on ice. Then transfer into sample tubes for biochemical analysis. To obtain serum, blood was kept for 30 min to coagulate and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 15 min using a bench top centrifuge (MSE minor, England). The supernatant serum samples were collected using dry Pasteur pipettes, and then it was stored in the freezer at -800C for further examination [31].
2.4. Biochemical & Hematological Analysis
The separated serum samples were analyzed to determine the condition of the kidney and liver. Blood urea, serum creatinine, serum albumin, total protein, random blood sugar, total serum bilirubin, total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), low density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and liver enzymes such as Serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase (SGPT), Serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT), were examined by using Dimension RxL Max integrated Chemistry's system (USA) automated biochemistry analyzer.
The automated SYSMEX 6-part Diff hematology analyzer (Model: XN-550) was used for the total Red Blood Cell, White Blood Cell, and platelet count, hemoglobin, hematocrit, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), and mean corpuscular volume (MCV). Wright stain was used for blood smear preparation, and microscopic examination was done at 40X magnifications. An automated analyzer was used to find out the total and the differential count of WBC [32]. For plasma total protein analysis, the plasma liquid was fallen on the prism of a refractometer (Atago T2-NE, Japan) and was measured the concentration value of the scale.
2.5. Histological examination
Kidneys and livers of the experimental animals were prepared for the examination of gross lesions. 10% buffered formalin solution was used for the fixation of the organs and the tissue fixation was done in 48 -h duration and embedded with paraffin wax. The samples were trimmed about 4–5 μm thickness of tissue sections using a sectioning rotary microtome (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Model: HM 325, UK), and sectioned tissues were kept directly into the water bath (45 °C), and after that mounting was done. The mounted glass slides were preserved on a hot plate (54 °C) for whole night. Finally, Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) staining protocol was followed for mounted slides [33]. Photomicrographs were taken with ZEISS Axio Microscope, Germany (Camera: Leica) at 10X, 20X and 40X magnification.
2.5.1. Histological assessment of kidney tissues
Toxicological lesions of kidney tissue, such as tubular necrosis, medullary congestion, and the presence of protein and granular cast, degeneration, inflammation, and tubular injury were examined and scored. To do the assessment of kidney sections, a blind manner process was followed by an expert histologist. Tubular necrosis and protein cast were graded as follows: for no damage (0); mild (1), (unicellular, patchy, isolated damage); moderate (2), (<25% damage); severe (3), (damage, 25%–50%); and very severe (4), (>50% damage), based on the percentage of tissues affected [33,34].
2.5.2. Histological assessment of liver tissues
Toxicological lesions of liver tissues such as inflammation, portal area expansion, activated kupffer cells, fibrosis, ductular proliferation, congestion in blood vessels, and sinusoidal dilatation were examined and scored. Liver tissue lesions were scored as no lesions (0); mild (1), (1%–30% lesions); moderate (2), (>30%-70% lesions) and severe (3), (>70% lesions), based on the percentages of the tissues affected [32].
2.6. Statistics
All data were expressed as mean (±SEM) (Standard Error Mean). Drug-dose model, organ’s weight, and hematological parameters were analyzed by Independent sample t-test. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA following Tukey B test was used to analyze the body weight of the experimental animals. One-way ANOVA was used to analyze the biochemical parameters. Multiparametric and semi-quantitative analysis has been done for histological scoring of kidney and liver tissue. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS software (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SPSS Inc, Chicago, III, USA). A p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant; highly significant <.01; very highly significant <.001.
3. Result
3.1. Determination of nephrotoxicity dose model
To establish the nephrotoxicity dose model, the animals were divided into three different groups: healthy control (CON), group-1 (treated with 100 mg gentamycin/kg/day; i.p.), and group-2 (treated with 150 mg gentamycin/kg/day; i.p). Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine and uric acid levels were determined. Among the parameters, a significant level of increase has been observed compared to the healthy control (Table 1).
Table 1.
Comparison of the biochemical parameters of the nephrotoxicity dose model of animals.
| Parameters | CON | Group-1 | Group-2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blood urea nitrogen (mg/dL) | 22.43(±1.44) | 44.80(±2.62) (p = .264) | 73.13(±1.04) (p = .230) |
| Serum creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.79(±0.01) | 2.49(±0.18) (p = .002) * | 4.20(±0.24) (p = .006) # |
| Uric acid (mg/ml) | 1.06(±0.03) | 1.48(±0.06) (p = .553) | 1.75(±0.07) (p = .061) |
Results are expressed as Mean (±SEM). Independent Sample t-test was used to analyze the data. Here, N = 6 for all groups. Here, CON = Healthy Control, Group-1 represents the experimental animals treated with 100 mg of gentamycin and Group-2 represent the experimental animals treated with 150 mg of gentamycin. Here, *p < .001 when compared to the healthy control with Group-1; #p < .001 when compared to the healthy control with Group-2.
3.2. Estimation of the weight of Body and Organs
Weekly measurement of body weight demonstrated that all experimental rats continuously gained weight (Table 2). Insignificant results were found for the body weight of the experimental groups during the four-week study period. Follow up comparisons indicated the difference was significant (p < .01) and increase the body weight over time found in the Two-way repeated measures ANOVA following Tukey B test (Table 2). Terminal weights of liver (*p < .001) were found to be significantly elevated in the untreated disease (STD) group compared to the control (CON) rats (Table 3). Treatment with amlodipine reduced the liver weight (Table 3). A significant decrease in heart weight in the losartan treated group was found (Table 3).
Table 2.
Comparison of the Body Weight of Sprague Dawley rats during the four-week treatment period.
| Treatment Groups | Day | Mean | Std. Error | 95% Confidence Interval |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||
| CON | 1 | 199.833 | 14.928 | 169.346 | 230.321 |
| 2 | 225.500 | 14.946 | 194.976 | 256.024 | |
| 3 | 232.500 | 15.438 | 200.971 | 264.029 | |
| 4 | 238.833 | 15.089 | 208.018 | 269.648 | |
| 5 | 235.000 | 13.985 | 206.439 | 263.561 | |
| STD | 1 | 201.667 | 14.928 | 171.179 | 232.154 |
| 2 | 197.000 | 14.946 | 166.476 | 227.524 | |
| 3 | 205.833 | 15.438 | 174.304 | 237.362 | |
| 4 | 222.500 | 15.089 | 191.685 | 253.315 | |
| 5 | 211.333 | 13.985 | 182.772 | 239.894 | |
| STV | 1 | 195.333 | 14.928 | 164.846 | 225.821 |
| 2 | 219.667 | 14.946 | 189.143 | 250.190 | |
| 3 | 228.333 | 15.438 | 196.804 | 259.862 | |
| 4 | 239.167 | 15.089 | 208.352 | 269.982 | |
| 5 | 239.333 | 13.985 | 210.772 | 267.894 | |
| AML | 1 | 198.667 | 14.928 | 168.179 | 229.154 |
| 2 | 219.167 | 14.946 | 188.643 | 249.690 | |
| 3 | 223.833 | 15.438 | 192.304 | 255.362 | |
| 4 | 234.000 | 15.089 | 203.185 | 264.815 | |
| 5 | 236.500 | 13.985 | 207.939 | 265.061 | |
| VAS | 1 | 195.000 | 14.928 | 164.513 | 225.487 |
| 2 | 221.000 | 14.946 | 190.476 | 251.524 | |
| 3 | 234.500 | 15.438 | 202.971 | 266.029 | |
| 4 | 244.333 | 15.089 | 213.518 | 275.148 | |
| 5 | 236.333 | 13.985 | 207.772 | 264.894 | |
| LOS | 1 | 213.000 | 14.928 | 182.513 | 243.487 |
| 2 | 206.333 | 14.946 | 175.810 | 236.857 | |
| 3 | 196.167 | 15.438 | 164.638 | 227.696 | |
| 4 | 200.500 | 15.089 | 169.685 | 231.315 | |
| 5 | 205.833 | 13.985 | 177.272 | 234.394 | |
Data was analyzed by Two-way repeated measures ANOVA following Tukey B test. Here, N = 6 for all groups. Here, CON = Healthy Control; STD = Gentamycin-induced disease control; AML = Gentamycin-induced disease control treated with amlodipine; LOS = Gentamycin-induced disease control treated with Losartan; VAS = Gentamycin-induced disease control treated with Valsartan; STV = Gentamycin-induced disease control treated with Stevia. Significant value was considered as *p < .01.
Table 3.
Comparison of the organ’s weight of the experimental rats at the end of the treatment period.
| Weight of the organs (mg/kg body weight) | CON | STD | STV | AML | VAS | LOS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kidney | 1.25 ± 0.06 | 1.41 ± 0.09 | 1.23 ± 0.06 | 1.32 ± 0.07 | 1.37 ± 0.09 | 1.65 ± 0.06 |
| Liver | 6.15 ± 0.19 | 6.21 ± 0.60* | 6.94 ± 0.41 | 5.84 ± 0.30 | 6.41 ± 0.29 | 6.94 ± 0.23# |
| Lungs | 0.96 ± 0.13 | 0.98 ± 0.06 | 1.18 ± 0.04 | 1.03 ± 0.15 | 1.15 ± 0.03 | 1.18 ± 0.03 |
| Heart | 0.70 ± 0.04 | 0.62 ± 0.03 | 0.70 ± 0.03 | 0.70 ± 0.04 | 0.64 ± 0.02 | 0.57 ± 0.01# |
Data are expressed as Mean (±SEM). Independent Sample t-test was used for the analysis. N = 6 for all groups. Here, CON = Healthy Control; STD = Gentamycin-induced disease control; AML = Gentamycin-induced disease control treated with amlodipine; LOS = Gentamycin-induced disease control treated with Losartan; VAS = Gentamycin-induced disease control treated with Valsartan; STV = Gentamycin-induced disease control treated with Stevia. Here, *p < .001, compared to the healthy control and #p < .001, compared to gentamycin-induced disease control group.
3.3. Determination of biochemical & hematological parameters
Significant result has been observed in blood urea (p < .000) and serum creatinine (p < .000). Again, the value of serum albumin (p < .003), total cholesterol (p < .004), HDL (p < .009), and LDL (p < .050) was increased significantly among the treatment groups. Furthermore, all the treatment groups showed the significant decrease in the value of SGPT (p<.000), SGOT (p < .000), and serum total bilirubin (p < .000) (Table 4). On the other hand, LOS significantly increased serum creatinine and blood urea levels compared to the untreated STD group (Table 5). However, serum total bilirubin level increased significantly in the STD group compared to that of CON group (*p < .02) (Table 5). Treatment with valsartan markedly reduced the bilirubin level (#p < .05). However, it could not normalize the value (Table 5). The STD group demonstrated an increase in SGPT and SGOT levels compared to the CON group. Treatment with amlodipine (#p < .04), losartan (#p < .02) and stevia (#p < .04) significantly decreased SGOT level after the four-week treatment period. Serum cholesterol and LDL levels were found to be elevated in the STD group (Table 5). Treatment with valsartan and stevia reduced these values (Table 5).
Table 4.
Comparison of the biochemical parameters of gentamycin-induced nephrotoxic rats in treatment groups.
| Parameters | Different Groups | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood Urea | Between Groups | 1743.701 | 5 | 348.740 | 7.758 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 1348.542 | 30 | 44.951 | |||
| Total | 3092.243 | 35 | ||||
| Serum Creatinine | Between Groups | 1.954 | 5 | .391 | 6.579 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 1.782 | 30 | .059 | |||
| Total | 3.735 | 35 | ||||
| RBS | Between Groups | 1.390 | 5 | .278 | 2.230 | .077 |
| Within Groups | 3.740 | 30 | .125 | |||
| Total | 5.130 | 35 | ||||
| Total Protein | Between Groups | .182 | 5 | .036 | .721 | .613 |
| Within Groups | 1.517 | 30 | .051 | |||
| Total | 1.699 | 35 | ||||
| Serum Albumin | Between Groups | 1.327 | 5 | .265 | 4.592 | .003 |
| Within Groups | 1.733 | 30 | .058 | |||
| Total | 3.060 | 35 | ||||
| Total Cholesterol | Between Groups | 2736.889 | 5 | 547.378 | 4.422 | .004 |
| Within Groups | 3713.333 | 30 | 123.778 | |||
| Total | 6450.222 | 35 | ||||
| TG | Between Groups | 97.222 | 5 | 19.444 | .634 | .676 |
| Within Groups | 920.667 | 30 | 30.689 | |||
| Total | 1017.889 | 35 | ||||
| HDL | Between Groups | 202.222 | 5 | 40.444 | 3.784 | .009 |
| Within Groups | 320.667 | 30 | 10.689 | |||
| Total | 522.889 | 35 | ||||
| LDL | Between Groups | 1100.333 | 5 | 220.067 | 2.528 | .050 |
| Within Groups | 2611.667 | 30 | 87.056 | |||
| Total | 3712.000 | 35 | ||||
| SGPT | Between Groups | 8104.667 | 5 | 1620.933 | 38.861 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 1251.333 | 30 | 41.711 | |||
| Total | 9356.000 | 35 | ||||
| SGOT | Between Groups | 11140.333 | 5 | 2228.067 | 12.955 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 5159.667 | 30 | 171.989 | |||
| Total | 16300.000 | 35 | ||||
| Total Serum Bilirubin | Between Groups | 2.470 | 5 | .494 | 38.041 | .000 |
| Within Groups | .390 | 30 | .013 | |||
| Total | 2.860 | 35 |
One-way ANOVA has been done for the data analysis. Here, N = 6 for all groups. RBS = Random Blood Sugar, TG = Triglycerides, HDL=High Density Lipoprotein, LDL = Low Density Lipoprotein, SGPT = Serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase, SGOT = Serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase. *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 5.
Comparison of the biochemical & hematological parameters of gentamycin-induced nephrotoxic rats in treatment groups.
| Different Parameters | CON | STD | STV | AML | VAS | LOS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood urea (mg/dL) | 19.50 ± 0.76 | 22.00 ± 1.03 | 22.83 ± 2.13 | 20.16 ± 0.98 | 19.66 ± 1.02 | 39.33 ± 6.05# |
| Serum creatinine (mg/dL) | 1.06 ± 0.03 | 1.08 ± 0.05 | 1.20 ± 0.10 | 1.03 ± 0.06 | 0.97 ± 0.02 | 1.44 ± 0.15# |
| RBS (mmol/L) | 2.85 ± 0.10 | 2.96 ± 0.12 | 2.58 ± 0.16 | 2.88 ± 0.13 | 2.51 ± 0.09 | 2.41 ± 0.21 |
| Total Protein (g/dL) | 6.40 ± 0.10 | 6.40 ± 0.06 | 6.33 ± 0.07 | 6.25 ± 0.09 | 6.20 ± 0.05 | 6.23 ± 0.14 |
| Serum Albumin (g/dL) | 2.96 ± 0.08 | 3.18 ± 0.10 | 3.20 ± 0.10 | 3.01 ± 0.11 | 2.73 ± 0.05 | 3.31 ± 0.11 |
| Total Cholesterol (mg/dL) | 68.50 ± 2.29 | 83.16 ± 1.88 | 85.83 ± 9.23 | 73.33 ± 2.20 | 62.33 ± 2.66 | 82.50 ± 4.20 |
| TG (mg/dL) | 42.16 ± 1.70 | 44.50 ± 1.94 | 43.16 ± 1.95 | 42.16 ± 1.83 | 40.33 ± 1.72 | 45.33 ± 3.77 |
| HDL (mg/dL) | 50.33 ± 1.14 | 51.83 ± 1.77 | 53.50 ± 1.23 | 49.83 ± 1.10 | 45.83 ± 1.66 | 50.33 ± 0.88 |
| LDL (mg/dL) | 11.00 ± 1.96 | 21.83 ± 1.74 | 22.66 ± 7.66 | 14.83 ± 1.13 | 9.33 ± 1.96 | 22.33 ± 4.05 |
| SGPT (per Liter) | 47.16 ± 3.75 | 92.16 ± 1.70 | 86.33 ± 2.48 | 86.50 ± 2.56 | 81.50 ± 2.40 | 86.33 ± 2.48 |
| SGOT (per Liter) | 178.16 ± 5.33 | 234.50 ± 10.17 | 191.66 ± 3.09# | 198.66 ± 3.12# | 189.66 ± 4.08 | 193.33 ± 1.97# |
| Serum total bilirubin (mg/dl) | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 1.17 ± 0.06* | 0.87 ± .04 | 0.89 ± 0.06 | 0.87 ± 0.03# | 0.88 ± 0.04 |
| Hb (gm/dL) | 12.46 ± 0.13 | 10.71 ± 0.27 | 13.06 ± 0.28 | 12.36 ± 0.21 | 12.33 ± 0.14 | 12.44 ± 0.13 |
| RBC (million/cumm) | 6.51 ± 0.07 | 5.85 ± 0.08 | 6.77 ± 0.14 | 6.64 ± 0.15 | 6.24 ± 0.10 | 6.32 ± 0.22 |
| HCT (%) | 38.80 ± 0.31 | 42.76 ± 0.90* | 41.41 ± 0.72 | 39.20 ± 1.30 | 36.83 ± 0.48 | 40.40 ± 0.63 |
| MCV (fL) | 57.98 ± 0.44 | 59.85 ± 1.16 | 59.50 ± 0.46 | 50.93 ± 8.36 | 56.60 ± 0.76 | 60.10 ± 1.02 |
| MCH (pg) | 18.73 ± 0.15 | 18.33 ± 0.32 | 18.35 ± 0.27 | 18.60 ± 0.28 | 18.41 ± 0.27 | 18.80 ± 0.14 |
| MCHC (gm/dL) | 32.38 ± 0.32 | 33.08 ± 0.52 | 32.93 ± 0.14 | 29.18 ± 3.20 | 33.73 ± 0.31 | 31.73±.218 |
| RDW-SD (fL) | 33.10 ± 0.25 | 31.28 ± 0.55 | 33.75 ± 0.43 | 33.25 ± 0.55 | 34.16 ± 0.83 | 35.05 ± 1.06 |
| RDW-CV (%) | 17.63 ± 0.33 | 17.26 ± 0.21 | 17.40 ± 0.19 | 17.05 ± 0.09# | 17.76 ± 0.38 | 17.58 ± 0.32 |
| WBC (X 10^3) | 5.51 ± 0.28 | 4.65 ± 0.59 | 4.88 ± 0.56 | 4.86 ± 0.32 | 5.20 ± 0.68 | 4.68 ± 0.40 |
| Neutrophils (%) | 15.50 ± 0.6 | 7.66 ± 0.84 | 10.83 ± 1.16 | 8.33 ± 1.17 | 10.16 ± 0.9 | 6.33 ± 0.84 |
| Lymphocytes (%) | 81.00 ± 0.51 | 89.16 ± 1.1 | 85.16 ± 1.10 | 86.66 ± 1.3 | 85.83 ± 0.9 | 91.00 ± 0.85 |
| Monocytes (%) | 2.16 ± 0.30 | 1.16 ± 0.16 | 1.33 ± 0.21 | 1.83 ± 0.40# | 1.66 ± 0.21 | 1.16 ± 0.16 |
| Eosinophils (%) | 1.33 ± 0.21 | 1.16 ± 0.16 | 1.16 ± 0.16 | 1.00 ± 0.00# | 1.50 ± 0.22 | 1.00 ± 0.00# |
| Basophils (%) | 0.26 ± 0.07 | 1.14 ± 0.13 | 1.50 ± 0.22# | 2.21 ± 0.51# | 1.04 ± 0.07 | 0.99 ± 0.26 |
| Platelet (X 10^3) | 620.50 ± 21.6 | 546.66 ± 54.2 | 493.33 ± 65.1 | 493.16 ± 57.4 | 528.50 ± 44 | 537.33 ± 4 |
Values are expressed as Mean (±SEM). Independent sample t-test has been followed. N = 6 for all groups. Here, CON= Healthy Control; STD = Gentamycin- induced disease control; AML = Gentamycin-induced disease control treated with amlodipine; LOS = Gentamycin-induced disease control treated with Losartan; VAS = Gentamycin-induced disease control treated with Valsartan; STV = Gentamycin-induced disease control treated with Stevia. Here, RBC = total count of Red Blood Cells, Hb = Hemoglobin, HCT = Hematocrit, MCV = Mean Corpuscular Volume, MCH = Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin, MCHC = Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration, RDW SD = Red Blood Cell Distribution Width SD, RDW-CV = Red Blood Cell Distribution Width-CV. *p < .001 when compared to the healthy control and #p < .001 when compared to gentamycin induced disease control.
A significant increase in hematocrit (HCT) level was observed (*p < .001) in the STD group compared to the CON (Table 5). The untreated STD group showed an increase in basophil and lymphocyte levels (Table 5). Among the treatment groups, stevia (#p < .009) and amlodipine (#p < .035) demonstrated a significant increase in the basophil level (Table 5).
3.4. Examination of histological features
Histological features of kidney showed the comparison of organ toxicity among the groups for the tubular necrosis, glomerular congestion, blood vessel congestion, interstitial edema, inflammatory cells, and deposition of protein cast. All the figures are presented in the Fig. 1. Tubular necrosis was graded as based on the percentage of tissues affected [33,34]. In the liver tissue inflammation, fibrosis, portal expansion, ductular proliferation, congestion in blood vessels, activated kupffer cells, and sinusoidal dilatation were found as toxicological lesions and presented in Fig. 2 and scoring was done by the percentages of the tissues affected [32].
Fig. 1.
Photomicrographs of Kidney sections of rats at the end of the 4th week at different magnification (H&E stain, X10, X20, X40).
In this Figure section, A represents no change of the renal cortex of CON group; B (1, & 3) represents the glomerular & peritubular congestion in the renal cortex of STV, & VAS group; B-2 represents the glomerular & peritubular congestion in the renal medulla of AML rats; C-1 represents the congestion in the blood vessels in the renal medulla of STD rats and C (2 & 3) shows in the renal cortex of AML & VAS rats and C-4 expresses in the renal medulla of STV rats; Interstitial inflammation or edema has been found in the renal cortex in figure D-1 of STV rats and D-2 of LOS rats. E (1 & 2) expressed chronic inflammation & inflammatory cells in the renal pelvis of STD and AML rats and E-3 shows in the renal medulla of LOS rats. F (1 & 2) shows the tubular necrosis, protein cast & calcification in the renal medulla of STD and STV rats and F-3 in the renal cortex of LOS rats. G (1 & 2) represents the tubular injury in the renal cortex of STD and LOS group.
Fig. 2.
Photomicrographs of Liver sections of rats at the end of the 4th week at different magnification (H&E stain, X10, X20, X40).
In this Figure section, A represents no change of the liver tissue in CON rats. Portal expansion with inflammation and fibrosis and ductular proliferation has been observed in B (1 & 2) of STD and VAS rats. Blood vessel congestion in the portal area was observed in C (1, 2 & 3) of STD and STV and AML rat model. Mild inflammation in the portal area was found in D (1, 2, 3, & 4) of STD, STV, AML and LOS rats. Mild fibrosis & inflammation were observed in the portal area in E (1, 2 & 3) of STD and STV and AML rats. Sinusoidal Dilatation has been observed in F of STV experimental rat models.
Section of rat kidney of the CON group had a normal morphological structure with the appearance of the tubules and glomeruli (Fig. 1 and Table 6). The STD Kidney showed congestion of blood vessels, tubular necrosis, deposition of protein casts in the tubules, interstitial inflammation, presence of inflammatory cells, and calcification at renal medulla and cortex. Chronic inflammation and inflammatory cells in the renal pelvis area were also observed in the STD rat model. Treatment with stevia reduced chronic inflammation and presence of inflammatory cells and tubular injury (Fig. 1 and Table 6). In addition, treatment with valsartan reduced nephrotoxicity by decreasing chronic inflammation, presence of inflammatory cells, tubular necrosis, protein cast, calcification and tubular injury. Treatment with amlodipine also improved renal tissue damage over the four-week treatment period (Fig. 1 and Table 6).
Table 6.
Histological scoring of kidney and liver tissues of rat models.
| Histological Features of Kidney | CON | STD | STV | AML | VAS | LOS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glomerular Congestion | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Peritubular Congestion | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Congestion in Blood Vessels | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Interstitial inflammation with oedema | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Chronic Inflammation | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Inflammatory Cells | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Tubular Necrosis | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Protein Cast | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Calcification | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Tubular Injury | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Histological Features of Liver | ||||||
| Portal expansion with inflammation | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Fibrosis | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Ductular proliferation | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Blood vessel congestion | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Mild Inflammation | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mild Fibrosis | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Sinusoidal Dilatation | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Preliminary observation of the histological slides of kidneys and liver of all groups of rats. Multiparametric, semi-quantitative analysis has been done for histological scoring of kidney and liver tissue. Tubular necrosis and protein cast were graded as follows: for no damage (0); mild (1), (unicellular, patchy, isolated damage); moderate (2), (<25% damage); severe (3), (damage, 25%–50%); and very severe (4), (>50% damage), based on the percentage of tissues affected [33,34]. The lesions scoring for liver tissues were scored as no lesions (0); mild (1), (1%–30% lesions); moderate (2), (>30%-70% lesions) and severe (3), (>70% lesions), based on the percentages of the tissues affected [32]. Here, CON = Healthy Control; STD = Gentamycin induced disease control; AML = Gentamycin induced disease control treated with amlodipine; LOS = Gentamycin induced disease control treated with Losartan; VAS = Gentamycin induced disease control treated with Valsartan; STV = Gentamycin induced disease control treated with Stevia.
Histological features of liver tissue demonstrated normal arrangement of hepatic cells, central veins and normal blood sinusoids in the CON groups (Fig. 2 and Table 6). The portal expansion with inflammation and fibrous expansion in the portal tract and ductular proliferation, congestion in the portal vein was observed in the STD rats (Fig. 2 and Table 6). Administration of stevia, losartan and valsartan reduced portal expansion with inflammation and fibrosis (Fig. 2 and Table 6).
4. Discussion
Significant increase of serum creatinine, uric acid and blood urea nitrogen levels over a five-day administration of 100 mg gentamycin/kg/day in the inductive group of rats represented that nephrotoxicity was established in these experimental animals. No mortality was noted in this group. Although, administration of 150 mg gentamycin/kg/day demonstrated more pronounced renal damage than 100 mg gentamycin/kg/day as represented by highly elevated blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine levels, fifty percent of the experimental animals died after 5th day of experimental period.
The current study expressed the continuous increase of body weight in the gentamycin-induced untreated group which might be due to edema caused by dysfunction in reabsorption process and reduced GFR [35], and tubular necrosis. The nephrotoxicity can be assessed by measuring body weight and the biochemical markers like serum creatinine level and blood urea nitrogen. The elevated serum creatinine levels are the most powerful indicator in the first phases of kidney disease. The concentration of blood urea was started to increase only after parenchymal injury [36]. In this study, administration of gentamycin led to a significant increase in blood urea and serum creatinine levels, which corroborated with previous results reported by others [37,38]. In this case, treatment with stevia, valsartan, and amlodipine showed significant protective effects against renal failure by reducing the serum creatinine level and blood urea.
Gentamycin distinctly raised intracellular Ca2+ levels and activate both calcium influx from the external source and Ca2+ release from the internal stores causing renal mesengial cellular contraction [39]. Accordingly, Ca2+ channel blocker was considered to have the beneficial effects on gentamycin-induced nephrotoxicity [40]. Previous studies suggested that the hypotensive mechanism of stevia might be due to interference of the Ca2+ influx [41]. Our results indicated that treatment with amlodipine had a positive effect on progression and development of nephrotoxicity caused by gentamycin. Toba et al. demonstrated that amlodipine and manidipine inhibited excessive expression of NADPH oxidase in angiotensin-II, which was stimulated by endothelial cells and reduced superoxide generation [42]. Furthermore, ACE inhibitors and ARBs were indicated to slow down the progression and development of diabetic glomerulopathy and chronic renal dysfunction [43]. For this reason, these two groups of drugs are reported as the first-line treatment for the patients of diabetes, hypertension and CKD [43]. However, our results demonstrated that losartan treated group failed to improve or prevent renal failure and nephrotoxicity.
AT1 receptor is the member of G protein-coupled receptor superfamily containing 359 amino acids [44]. The AT1 receptor blockers used in this study were losartan and valsartan. Losartan has the structure of an imidazole derivative with a biphenyl-tetrazole side chain, while valsartan has a tetrazole-biphenyl-valine derivative with only one heterocyclic structure [45]. It was found that the tetrazole ring and carboxylic acid group of valsartan possibly bind with Lys199 of TM5 and Ser109 of TM3 and Asn295 of TM7 of AT1 receptor. Repeatedly, the hydroxymethyl group and tetrazole ring of losartan probably bind with Asn295 of TM7 and Ser109 of TM3 of AT1 receptor. Therefore, Bhuiyan et al., (2009) mentioned about the larger number of binding sites of valsartan of the AT1 receptor than losartan in their study [46]. Furthermore, Fogari et al., (2010) demonstrated that valsartan is an immediately active drug and excreted unchanged through urine, whereas losartan converted into more-active metabolite [45]. Moreover, the observed renoprotective effect of valsartan might be due to its greater capacity to activate renal angiotensin II type 2 (AT2) receptors than that of losartan. In the current study, valsartan also demonstrated a significant beneficial effect on renal damage over losartan.
Different studies on animal models established that the production and accumulation of free radicals are major causes of gentamycin induced nephrotoxicity [19]. Elewa HA et al., (2016) demonstrated that gentamycin-induced rats showed glomeruli atrophy and hypertrophy in animals, tubular necrosis with cystic luminal dilatation at the cortex [47]. The control group of the study showed normal histological structure of the glomeruli and renal tubules in the cortex and in the medulla [48]. Gentamycin induced renal damage was observed by glomerular and peritubular congestion, interstitial inflammation, edema, protein cast, calcification, tubular necrosis and injury. Treatment with stevia and amlodipine partially and valsartan mildly decreased renal damage. Previous results reported that losartan markedly ameliorated gentamycin-induced renal tubular damage in histological examination and scoring [47]. Besides, a few studies showed that losartan aggravated renal damage caused by gentamycin [48]. In the current study, losartan treatment provoked renal damage in the renal medulla and cortex. Although both losartan and valsartan are highly effective controlling blood pressure, losartan has smaller number of hydrogen bonds and lesser affinity to bind to AT1 receptor and activate AT2 receptors compared to valsartan. AT2 receptor activation results in small vessel dilatation and which possibly prevent further renal and cardiac damage.
SGPT, SGOT, and total serum bilirubin are the specific indicators of impairment of hepatic cell membrane and hepatocellular necrosis. Gentamycin increased oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation developing a greater level of SGOT [49]. In the present study, amlodipine, losartan and stevia improved the histological damage of the liver, such as, portal expansion and inflammation, fibrosis, ductular proliferation, and blood vessel congestion. In oppose with the results found in the kidney tissue, liver histological slides demonstrated that only losartan showed an improvement in all areas of damage to hepatocytes except mild inflammation and fibrosis. Treatment with stevia, amlodipine and losartan reduced SGPT, SGOT, and serum bilirubin levels. In brief, valsartan and stevia demonstrated the beneficial modulatory and renoprotective effects in gentamycin-induced nephrotoxicity. Our published data demonstrated the multimodal mechanism of stevia, via calcium channel antagonism, M2 muscarinic receptor activation, and increased nitric oxide secretion [50].
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, the comparison of the renoprotective effect of amlodipine, losartan, valsartan and stevia in gentamycin-induced renal damage in Sprague-Dawley rats have been done. Our results indicated that valsartan is the treatment of choice in nephrotoxicity and amlodipine has a beneficial protective effect on the renal system comparable to that of ARBs. Stevia showed a beneficial effect in reducing serum biochemical parameters and tissue damages. Our preliminary clinical study in CKD patients also supported this outcome [25]. The mechanisms of renoprotective effects of stevia might be multimodal, via the reduction of inflammation through other neuro-hormonal pathways. Further study is needed to establish these valuable effects and illuminate the precise mechanism of renoprotective effects of these drugs.
Conflict of interest
None.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the Pharmacology Division of Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India for their continued assistance and support in this study. We also would like to thank the authority and staffs of Wazed Miah Science Research Center in Jahangirnagar University for their best cooperation and supports during the research work.
Contributor Information
Farhana Rizwan, Email: farhanarizwan12@gmail.com, frezwan@ewubd.edu.
Saquiba Yesmine, Email: s.yesmine@juniv.edu.
Sultana Gulshan Banu, Email: sgb.bsmmu@gmail.com.
Ishtiak Ahmed Chowdhury, Email: ishtipharm@yahoo.com.
Rajibul Hasan, Email: rajib00071@gmail.com.
Tapan Kumar Chatterjee, Email: crctkc@gmail.com, tkchatterjee_81@rediffmail.com.
References
- 1.Jeppesen P.B., Gregersen S., Rolfsen S.E.D., Jepsen M., Colombo M., Agger A., Xiao J., Kruhoffer M., Orntoft T., Hermansen K. Antihyperglycemic and blood pressure-reducing effects of stevioside in the diabetic Goto-Kakizaki rat. Metabolism. 2003;52:372–378. doi: 10.1053/meta.2003.50058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ghaheri M., Kahrizi D., Bahrami G., Mohammadi-Motlagh H.-R. Study of gene expression and steviol glycosides accumulation in Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni under various mannitol concentrations. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2019;46:7–16. doi: 10.1007/s11033-018-4250-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Boonkaewwan C., Toskulkao C., Vongsakul M. Anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory activities of stevioside and its metabolite steviol on THP-1 cells. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006;54:785–789. doi: 10.1021/jf0523465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ghaheri M., Miraghaee S., Babaei A., Mohammadi B., Kahrizi D., Saivosh Haghighi Z.M., Bahrami G. Effect of Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni extract on sexual dysfunction in Streptozotocin-induced diabetic male rats. Cell. Mol. Biol. (Noisy-le-grand) 2018;64:6–10. doi: 10.14715/cmb/2018.64.2.2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Yousef M.I., Khalil D.K.A.M., Abdou H.M. Neuro- and nephroprotective effect of grape seed proanthocyanidin extract against carboplatin and thalidomide through modulation of inflammation, tumor suppressor protein p53, neurotransmitters, oxidative stress and histology. Toxicol. Reports. 2018;5:568–578. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2018.04.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Mamoulakis C., Fragkiadoulaki I., Karkala P., Georgiadis G., Zisis I.-E., Stivaktakis P., Kalogeraki A., Tsiaoussis I., Burykina T., Lazopoulos G., Tsarouhas K., Kouretas D., Tsatsakis A. Contrast-induced nephropathy in an animal model: evaluation of novel biomarkers in blood and tissue samples. Toxicol. Reports. 2019;6:395–400. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2019.04.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Conklin K.A. Cancer chemotherapy and antioxidants. J. Nutr. 2004;134:3201S–3204S. doi: 10.1093/jn/134.11.3201S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Purena R., Seth R., Bhatt R. Protective role of Emblica officinalis hydro-ethanolic leaf extract in cisplatin induced nephrotoxicity in Rats. Toxicol. Reports. 2018;5:270–277. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2018.01.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Iordache A.M., Docea A.O., Buga A.M., Mitrut R., Albulescu D., Zlatian O., Ianosi S., Ianosi G., Neagoe D., Sifaki M., Rogoveanu O.C., Branisteanu D.E., Calina D. The incidence of skin lesions in contrast media-induced chemical hypersensitivity. Exp. Ther. Med. 2019;17:1113–1124. doi: 10.3892/etm.2018.7056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Heeba G.H. Angiotensin II receptor blocker, losartan, ameliorates gentamicin-induced oxidative stress and nephrotoxicity in rats. Pharmacology. 2011;87:232–240. doi: 10.1159/000325457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Vanderheyden P.M., Fierens F.L., De Backer J.P., Fraeyman N., Vauquelin G. Distinction between surmountable and insurmountable selective AT1 receptor antagonists by use of CHO-K1 cells expressing human angiotensin II AT1 receptors. Br. J. Pharmacol. 1999;126:1057–1065. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0702398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ashrafi F., Nematbakhsh M., Safari T., Talebi A., Nasri H., Khazaei M., Baradaran-Mahdavi M.-M., Jafapisheh A., Olia B., Pirhaji O., Hashemi-Nia S.-J., Eshraghi F., Pezeshki Z., Mortazavi M. A combination of vitamin C and losartan for cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in rats. Iran. J. Kidney Dis. 2012;6:361–365. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Abdel-Rahman M.N., Kandeel M. Effect of amlodipine and trimetazidine on gentamicin-induced nephrotoxicity in rats. J. Am. Sci. 2012;8 [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ishimitsu T., Honda T., Ohno E., Furukata S., Sudo Y., Nakano N., Takahashi T., Ono H., Matsuoka H. Year-long antihypertensive therapy with candesartan completely prevents development of cardiovascular organ injuries in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Int. Heart J. 2010;51:359–364. doi: 10.1536/ihj.51.359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Julien J., Farge D., Kreft-Jais C., Guyene T.T., Plouin P.F., Houssin D., Carpentier A., Corvol P. Cyclosporine-induced stimulation of the renin-angiotensin system after liver and heart transplantation. Transplantation. 1993;56:885–891. doi: 10.1097/00007890-199310000-00022. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/8212212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Martínez-Salgado C., López-Hernández F.J., López-Novoa J.M. Glomerular nephrotoxicity of aminoglycosides. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2007;223:86–98. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2007.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kasapovic J., Pejic S., Todorovic A., Stojiljkovic V., Pajovic S.B. Antioxidant status and lipid peroxidation in the blood of breast cancer patients of different ages. Cell Biochem. Funct. 2008;26:723–730. doi: 10.1002/cbf.1499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tulkens P.M. Aminoglycosides: Nephrotoxicity. Am. Soc. Microbiol. 1999;43:1003–1012. doi: 10.1128/aac.43.5.1003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Erdem A., Gundogan N.U., Usubutun A., Kilinc K., Erdem S.R., Kara A., Bozkurt A. The protective effect of taurine against gentamicin-induced acute tubular necrosis in rats. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2000;15:1175–1182. doi: 10.1093/ndt/15.8.1175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Cuzzocrea S., Mazzon E., Dugo L., Serraino I., Di Paola R., Britti D., De Sarro A., Pierpaoli S., Caputi A., Masini E., Salvemini D. A role for superoxide in gentamicin-mediated nephropathy in rats. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2002;450:67–76. doi: 10.1016/s0014-2999(02)01749-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Ali B.H. Gentamicin nephrotoxicity in humans and animals: some recent research. Gen. Pharmacol. Vasc. Syst. 1995;26:1477–1487. doi: 10.1016/0306-3623(95)00049-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zhou Y., Vaidya V.S., Brown R.P., Zhang J., Rosenzweig B.A., Thompson K.L., Miller T.J., Bonventre J.V., Goering P.L. Comparison of kidney injury Molecule-1 and other nephrotoxicity biomarkers in urine and kidney following acute exposure to gentamicin, mercury, and chromium. Toxicol. Sci. 2007;101:159–170. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfm260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Elliott W.C., Houghton D.C., Gilbert D.N., Baines-Hunter J., Bennett W.M. Experimental gentamicin nephrotoxicity: effect of streptozotocin-induced diabetes. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1985;233:264–270. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Potocnjak I., Broznic D., Kindl M., Kropek M., Vladimir-Knezevic S., Domitrovic R. Stevia and stevioside protect against cisplatin nephrotoxicity through inhibition of ERK1/2, STAT3, and NF-kappaB activation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2017;107:215–225. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.06.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Rizwan F., Rashid H.U., Yesmine S., Monjur F., Chatterjee T.K. Preliminary analysis of the effect of Stevia (Stevia rebaudiana) in patients with chronic kidney disease (stage I to stage III) Contemp. Clin. Trials Commun. 2018;12 doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Yesmine S., Bennett M., Coulson F.R., Fenning A.S. Prevention of vascular and gastrointestinal damage in diabetic rats by Stevia. Hear. Lung Circ. 2009;18:S311. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hsu Y.-H., Liu J.-C., Kao P.-F., Lee C.-N., Chen Y.-J., Hsieh M.-H., Chan P. Antihypertensive effect of stevioside in different strains of hypertensive rats. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei) 2002;65:1–6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11939668 (Accessed April 21, 2019) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Chan P., Xu D.Y., Liu J.C., Chen Y.J., Tomlinson B., Huang W.P., Cheng J.T. The effect of stevioside on blood pressure and plasma catecholamines in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Life Sci. 1998;63:1679–1684. doi: 10.1016/s0024-3205(98)00439-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Alvarez Y., Pérez-Girón J.V., Hernanz R., Briones A.M., García-Redondo A., Beltrán A., Alonso M.J., Salaices M. Losartan reduces the increased participation of cyclooxygenase-2-derived products in vascular responses of hypertensive rats. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2007;321:381–388. doi: 10.1124/jpet.106.115287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.de Gasparo M., Hess P., Nuesslein-Hildesheim B., Bruneval P., Clozel J.P. Combination of non-hypotensive doses of valsartan and enalapril improves survival of spontaneously hypertensive rats with endothelial dysfunction. J. Renin. Syst. 2000;1:151–158. doi: 10.3317/jraas.2000.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Wolford S.T., Schroer R.A., Gohs F.X., Gallo P.P., Brodeck M., Falk H.B., Ruhren R. Reference range data base for serum chemistry and hematology values in laboratory animals. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 1986;18:161–188. doi: 10.1080/15287398609530859. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Nurul S., Asyura N., Hamzah H., Shaari R.M., Sithambaram S., Mustapha N.M. Blood Profiles and Histopathological Changes of Liver and Kidney Tissues from Male Sprague Dawley Rats Treated with Ethanol Extracts of Clinacanthus nutans Leaf. J. Clin. Toxicol. 2016;6 [Google Scholar]
- 33.Dybing E., Doe J., Groten J., Kleiner J., O’Brien J., Renwick A.G., Schlatter J., Steinberg P., Tritscher A., Walker R., Younes M. Hazard characterisation of chemicals in food and diet. Dose response, mechanisms and extrapolation issues. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2002;40:237–282. doi: 10.1016/s0278-6915(01)00115-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Caramelo C., Espinosa G., Manzarbeitia F., Cernadas M.R., Tejerizo G.P., Tan D., Mosquera J.R., Digiuni E., Monto´n M., Milla´s I., Hernando L., Casado S., Lo´pez-Farre´ A. Role of endothelium-related mechanisms in the pathophysiology of renal Ischemia/Reperfusion in normal rabbits. Circ. Res. 1996;79:1031–1038. doi: 10.1161/01.res.79.5.1031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lopez-Novoa J.M., Quiros Y., Vicente L., Morales A.I., Lopez-Hernandez F.J. New insights into the mechanism of aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity: an integrative point of view. Kidney Int. 2011;79:33–45. doi: 10.1038/ki.2010.337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Kalayarasan S., Prabhu P.N., Sriram N., Manikandan R., Arumugam M., Sudhandiran G. Diallyl sulfide enhances antioxidants and inhibits inflammation through the activation of Nrf2 against gentamicin-induced nephrotoxicity in Wistar rats. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2009;606:162–171. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2008.12.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Tavafi M., Ahmadvand H., Toolabi P. Inhibitory effect of olive leaf extract on gentamicin-induced nephrotoxicity in rats. Iran. J. Kidney Dis. 2012;6:25–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Farombi E.O., Ekor M. Curcumin attenuates gentamicin-induced renal oxidative damage in rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2006;44:1443–1448. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2006.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Balakumar P., Rohilla A., Thangathirupathi A. Gentamicin-induced nephrotoxicity: Do we have a promising therapeutic approach to blunt it? Pharmacol. Res. 2010;62:179–186. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2010.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Hollenberg N.K., Epstein M. Effects of the angiotensin-1 receptor blocker valsartan compared with amlodipine on renal hemodynamics. Am. J. Hypertens. 2004;17:638–640. doi: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2003.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Liu J.-C., Kao P.-K., Chan P., Hsu Y.-H., Hou C.-C., Lien G.-S., Hsieh M.-H., Chen Y.-J., Cheng J.-T. Mechanism of the antihypertensive effect of stevioside in anesthetized dogs. Pharmacology. 2003;67:14–20. doi: 10.1159/000066782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Toba H., Shimizu T., Miki S., Inoue R., Yoshimura A., Tsukamoto R., Sawai N., Kobara M., Nakata T. Calcium [corrected] channel blockers reduce angiotensin II-induced superoxide generation and inhibit lectin-like oxidized low-density lipoprotein receptor-1 expression in endothelial cells. Hypertens. Res. 2006;29:105–116. doi: 10.1291/hypres.29.105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Coppey L.J., Davidson E.P., Rinehart T.W., Gellett J.S., Oltman C.L., Lund D.D., Yorek M.A. ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor antagonist attenuates diabetic neuropathy in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats. Diabetes. 2006;55:341–348. doi: 10.2337/diabetes.55.02.06.db05-0885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Imaizumi S., Miura S., Yahiro E., Uehara Y., Komuro I., Saku K. Class- and molecule-specific differential effects of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2013;19:3002–3008. doi: 10.2174/1381612811319170005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Fogari R., Mugellini A., Preti P., Zoppi A., Derosa G. Valsartan addition to amlodipine is more effective than losartan addition in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by amlodipine. Vasc. Health Risk Manag. 2010;6:87–93. doi: 10.2147/vhrm.s9404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Bhuiyan M.A., Ishiguro M., Hossain M., Nakamura T., Ozaki M., Miura S.-I., Nagatomo T. Binding sites of valsartan, candesartan and losartan with angiotensin II receptor 1 subtype by molecular modeling. Life Sci. 2009;85:136–140. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2009.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Elewa H. Study the nephro-protective effects of losartan on rats. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Pharmacother. 2016;101 [Google Scholar]
- 48.Suliska N., Sukandar E. The effectivity of captopril, losartan, and amlodipine on hypertension in rat model of gentamicin-induced renal failure. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2014;6:146–151. [Google Scholar]
- 49.Green R.M., Flamm S. AGA technical review on the evaluation of liver chemistry tests. Gastroenterology. 2002;123:1367–1384. doi: 10.1053/gast.2002.36061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Yesmine S., Connolly K., Hill N., Coulson F.R., Fenning A.S. Electrophysiological, Vasoactive, and Gastromodulatory Effects of Stevia in Healthy Wistar Rats. Planta Med. 2013;79:909–915. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1328706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]