Evaluation of Efficacy of Vitamin E and N-Acetyl Cysteine in Gentamicin-Induced Nephrotoxicity in Rats

Figures & data

Table 1. Treatment schedule

Groups	Treatment	1–8 days	9–16 days	No. of rats/group
I	Control	Olive oil	–	06
II	Gentamicin (GM)	GM	–	06
III	GM + vitamin E (vit. E)	GM + vit. E	–	06
IV	GM + N-acetyl cysteine (NAC)	GM + NAC	–	06
V	GM + vit. E + NAC (cotreatment group)	GM + vit. E + NAC	–	06
VI	GM (vit. E + NAC) (posttreatment group)	GM (vit. E + NAC)	Vit. E + NAC	06

Note: Gentamicin: 80 mg/kg, i.p.; vitamin E: 50 mg/kg, i.p.; N-acetyl cysteine: 50 mg/kg, i.p; olive oil: 1 mL/kg.

Table 2. Evaluation of kidney function by different parameters

Evaluation tests performed for the kidney function	Before	After	Method
Serum creatinine, urine creatinine estimation (KITS available)	√	√	Jaffe's method
Blood urea nitrogen level (KITS available)	√	√	DAM
Serum glucose level (KITS available)	√	√	GOD/POD
Malondialdehyde level (MDA)^9 (in kidney homogenate)	NA	√	Reaction with TBA
Glutathione level (GSH) (in kidney homogenate)^10	NA	√	Reaction with DTNB
Urine sodium estimation, plasma sodium estimation^11	√	√	Estimated by flame photometer
Fractional excretion of sodium (FE Na%)	√	√	Through equation

Note: TBA, Thiobarbituric acid; DTNB, 2, 4,- Di nitro benzoic acid; DAM, Diacetyl monoxime; GOD, Glucose Oxidase; POD, Pyurate Oxidase.

Table 3. Result

Biochemical studies	Mean ± SEM
	G-I control	G-II GM	G-III GM + vit. E	G-IV GM + NAC	G-V GM + vit. E + NAC	G-VI GM (vit. E + NAC)
Serum creatinine (mg/dL)	0.271 ± 0.011	0.736 ± 0.035	0.345 ± 0.007	0.354 ± 0.007	0.295 ± 0.019	0.425 ± 0.028
Serum glucose (mg/dL)	112.194 ± 1.403	53.943 ± 2.030	90.676 ± 6.147	89.573 ± 4.371	109.766 ± 1.995	77.628 ± 3.701
Blood urea nitrogen (mg/dL)	20.915 ± 0.761	56.266 ± 2.511	29.859 ± 0.681	27.186 ± 1.075	22.148 ± 2.064	33.892 ± 1.702
Renal malondialdehyde (nmoles of MDA/mgof protein)	1.400 ± 0.089	4.836 ± 0.313	2.249 ± 0.513	2.567 ± 0.324	1.483 ± 0.355	3.505 ± 0.436
Renal reduced glutathione (µg of GSH/mg of protein)	53.819 ± 3.845	10.184 ± 0.849	37.529 ± 4.618	37.907 ± 3.725	51.637 ± 6.134	23.828 ± 5.195
Urine sodium (mmol/L)	123.472 ± 3.564	237.216 ± 3.217	141.135 ± 2.339	152.304 ± 2.078	126.813 ± 2.927	184.636 ± 4.992
FE Na%	0.992 ± 0.070	7.922 ± 0.844	1.585 ± 0.158	1.828 ± 0.156	1.301 ± 0.087	3.015 ± 0.415

Figure 1. Effect of vitamin E and NAC on serum creatinine levels. Notes: Each bar represents the mean ± SEM of six observations. *Significantly different from control at p < 0.05, **significantly different from model control at p < 0.05, ***significantly different from vitamin E at p < 0.05, ****significantly different from NAC at p < 0.05, *****significantly different from vitamin E + NAC at p < 0.05.

Figure 2. Effect of vitamin E and NAC on blood urea nitrogen levels. Notes: Each bar represents the mean ± SEM of six observations. *Significantly different from control at p < 0.05, **significantly different from model control at p < 0.05, ***significantly different from vitamin E at p < 0.05, ****significantly different from NAC at p < 0.05, *****significantly different from vitamin E + NAC at p < 0.05.

Figure 3. Effect of vitamin E and NAC on serum glucose levels. Notes: Each bar represents the mean ± SEM of six observations. *Significantly different from control at p < 0.05, **significantly different from model control at p < 0.05, ***significantly different from vitamin E at p < 0.05, ****significantly different from NAC at p < 0.05, *****significantly different from vitamin E + NAC at p < 0.05.

Figure 4. Effect of vitamin E and NAC on renal malondialdehyde (MDA) levels. Notes: Each bar represents the mean ± SEM of six observations. *Significantly different from control at p < 0.05, **significantly different from model control at p < 0.05, ***significantly different from vitamin E at p < 0.05, ****significantly different from NAC at p < 0.05, *****significantly different from vitamin E + NAC at p < 0.05.

Figure 5. Effect of vitamin E and NAC on renal reduced glutathione (GSH) levels. Notes: Each bar represents the mean ± SEM of six observations. *Significantly different from control at p < 0.05, **significantly different from model control at p < 0.05, ***significantly different from vitamin E at p < 0.05, ****significantly different from NAC at p < 0.05, *****significantly different from vitamin E + NAC at p < 0.05.

Figure 6. Effect of vitamin E and NAC on urine sodium levels. Notes: Each bar represents the mean ± SEM of six observations. *Significantly different from control at p < 0.05, **significantly different from model control at p < 0.05, ***significantly different from vitamin E at p < 0.05, ****significantly different from NAC at p < 0.05, *****significantly different from vitamin E + NAC at p < 0.05.

Figure 7. Effect of vitamin E and NAC on fractional excretion of sodium. Notes: Each bar represents the mean ± SEM of six observations. *Significantly different from control at p < 0.05, **significantly different from model control at p < 0.05, ***significantly different from vitamin E at p < 0.05, ****significantly different from NAC at p < 0.05, *****significantly different from vitamin E + NAC at p < 0.05.

Figure 8. Histopathological study report (stain: hematoxylin–eosin; magnification: 100×).

Takamoto K, Kawada M, Usui T, Ishizuka M, Ikeda D. Inhibitory activity of dome formation in LLC PK1 cells is a selective index of aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity. J Antibiot (Tokyo). 2002;55(6):605–612.

 Google Scholar

Branch RA. Prevention of amphotericin B-induced renal impairment: A review on the use of sodium supplementation. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148:2389–2396.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang C, Salahudeen AK. Lipid peroxidation accompanies cyclosporine nephrotoxicity: Effects of vitamin E. Kidney Int. 1995;47:927–934.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar