Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (28)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rybak, L. P.
Right arrow Articles by Somani, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rybak, L. P.
Right arrow Articles by Somani, S. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Toxicological Sciences, Vol 47, 195-202, Copyright © 1999 by Society of Toxicology

ARTICLES

Dose dependent protection by lipoic acid against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in rats: antioxidant defense system

LP Rybak, K Husain, C Whitworth and SM Somani
Department of Pharmacology, Southern Illinois University, School of Medicine, Springfield 62794, USA.

This study investigated the alterations that occur in auditory brainstem-evoked responses (ABRs) concurrent with changes in cochlear concentrations of glutathione (GSH), lipid peroxidation, and antioxidant enzyme activity in cisplatin-induced ototoxicity and in dose-dependent otoprotection by an antioxidant lipoate. Male Wistar rats were divided into different groups and were treated as follows, with: (1) vehicle (saline) control; (2) cisplatin (16 mg/kg, i.p.); (3) lipoate (100 mg/kg, i.p.) plus saline; (4) cisplatin plus lipoate (25 mg/kg); (5) cisplatin plus lipoate (50 mg/kg), and (6) cisplatin plus lipoate (100 mg/kg). Post-treatment ABRs were evaluated after three days, the rats were sacrificed, and cochleae were harvested and analyzed. The cisplatin-injected rats showed ABR threshold elevations above the pre-treatment thresholds. Rats treated with lipoate plus cisplatin did not show significant elevation of hearing thresholds. Cisplatin administration resulted in a depletion of cochlear GSH concentration (69% of control), whereas, cisplatin-plus-lipoate treatment increased GSH concentration close to control value. Cisplatin- treated rats showed a decrease in cochlear superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), and glutathione reductase (GR) activities (57, 78, 59, and 58% of control, respectively), and an increase in malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration (196% of control). Cochlear SOD, CAT, GSH-Px, and GR activities and MDA concentrations were restored in the rats injected with cisplatin plus graded doses of lipoate than those with cisplatin alone. It is concluded that cisplatin-induced ototoxicity is related to impairment of the cochlear antioxidant defense system, and the dose-dependent otoprotection conferred by an antioxidant lipoate against cisplatin ototoxicity is associated with sparing of the cochlear antioxidant defense system.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Dent. Res.Home page
R. Benoliel, J. Epstein, E. Eliav, R. Jurevic, and S. Elad
Orofacial Pain in Cancer: Part I--Mechanisms
J. Dent. Res., June 1, 2007; 86(6): 491 - 505.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.