The antioxidant effects of pomegranate extract on local and remote organs in a mesenteric ischemia and reperfusion model

Figures & data

Figure 1 Microscopic images of the jejunum showing the histopathological samples of laparotomy (A), IR (B), and IR + PG (C) groups (H&E, 200×). (A) Mucosa with normal villous formation. (B) Disintegration of the villous (star), capillary dilatation, ulceration of lamina propria (arrow), capillary dilatation, infiltration, and hemorrhage (arrowhead) after IR injury. (C) Restitution of jejunal mucosa in the pomegranate-applied group.

Figure 2 Microscopic images of the liver showing the histopathological samples of laparotomy (A), IR (B), and IR + PG (C) groups (H&E, 200×). (A) Normal hepatocyte formation. (B) Degenerative changes (area marked with arrowheads); necrosis and picnotic nucleus (arrows). (C) Hepatocytes in pomegranate applied group with few picnotic changes (arrows).

Table 1 Oxidative and antioxidative parameters of all groups

	Sham (1)	Control (2)	IR (3)	IR + PG (4)	P values	Bonferroni
AOA (µmol Trolox equiv./l)	2.14 ± 0.32	2.35 ± 0.40	2.0 ± 0.54	2.67 ± 0.56	0.010	1 vs. 3,4
MDA (µmol/l)	0.51 ± 0.06	0.44 ± 0.10	0.77 ± 0.22	0.61 ± 0.15	0.001	1 vs. 3 and 3 vs. 4
Kidney-AOA (nmol Trolox equiv./mg)	2.15 ± 0.27	2.24 ± 0.11	2.29 ± 0.19	2.33 ± 0.11	NS	NS
Kidney-TOA (nmol H2O2 equiv./mg)	124.44 ± 11.03	119.32 ± 14.37	149.38 ± 30.56	132.63 ± 14.07	0.033	NS
Kidney-OSI	58.42 ± 5.49	53.13 ± 5.56	64.85 ± 9.40	57.16 ± 7.43	0.018	1 vs. 3 and 3 vs. 4
Liver-AOA (nmol Trolox equiv./mg)	3.46 ± 0.22	3.70 ± 0.29	4.06 ± 0.17	4.39 ± 0.32	<0.001	1 vs. 3,4 and 3 vs. 4
Liver-TOA (nmol H2O2 equiv./mg)	81.62 ± 11.83	72.36 ± 13.19	84.03 ± 7.56	78.06 ± 10.45	NS	NS
Liver-OSI	23.58 ± 3.12	19.82 ± 4.71	20.71 ± 2.04	17.96 ± 3.43	0.01	1 vs. 2,3,4 and 3 vs. 4
Lung-AOA (nmol Trolox equiv./mg)	3.77 ± 0.17	3.79 ± 0.23	4.07 ± 0.25	4.11 ± 0.13	<0.001	1 vs. 3,4
Lung-TOA (nmol H2O2 equiv./mg)	136.34 ± 15.44	118.95 ± 15.26	148.75 ± 18.74	127.57 ± 30.84	0.020	1 vs. 2,3
Lung-OSI	36.20 ± 4.36	31.57 ± 5.42	36.60 ± 4.44	31.03 ± 7.62	0.031	1 vs. 2 and 3 vs. 4

MDA, malondialdehyde; AOA, total antioxidant activity; TOA, total oxidant status; OSI, oxidative stress index.

Data are presented as mean ± SEM.

Statistically significant: P < 0.05. Comparisons between groups for Bonferroni test P < 0.008.

Figure 3 Comparison of OSI levels in the groups. Lap, laparotomy; PG, pomegranate; IR, ischemia–reperfusion.

Figure 4 Comparison of the lung, kidney, intestinal, and liver histopathologic score levels in the groups. Lap, laparotomy; PG, pomegranate; IR, ischemia–reperfusion.

Table 2 Histopathologic evaluation of intestine, kidney, liver, and lung for each group

	Sham (mean ± SEM)	Control (mean ± SEM)	IR (mean ± SEM)	IR + PG (mean ± SEM)	P values	Bonferroni P < 0.008
Intestine – HP	0.34 ± 0.47	0.23 ± 0.42	4.16 ± 1.00	2.11 ± 0.74	<0.001	1 vs. 3,4 and 3 vs. 4
Kidney – HP	0.23 ± 0.42	0.11 ± 0.31	1.78 ± 0.42	1.11 ± 0.57	<0.001	1 vs. 3,4 and 3 vs. 4
Liver – HP	0.34 ± 0.47	0.11 ± 0.31	1.78 ± 0.63	0.89 ± 0.74	<0.001	1 vs. 3 and 3 vs. 4
Lung – HP	0.23 ± 0.42	0.11 ± 0.31	1.78 ± 0.42	1.23 ± 0.42	<0.001	1 vs. 3,4 and 3 vs. 4

HP, histopathologic score. Data are presented as mean ± SEM.

Statistically significant: P < 0.05.