Background Image
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  33 / 68 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 33 / 68 Next Page
Page Background

CARDIOVASCULAR JOURNAL OF AFRICA • Volume 31, No 2, March/April 2020

AFRICA

85

to ACh administration when compared to the nicotine- and

NRUF-treated groups (E

max

values of 69.8

±

6.02 and 70.55

±

6.49%, respectively) (Fig. 3B).

Antioxidant enzyme activity

Nicotine has a high affinity for the liver

39

and is also metabolised

by the liver.

40

It has previously been demonstrated that nicotine

treatment resulted in a decrease in SOD

41,42

and CAT

42

activity in

the liver, compared to untreated controls. Our results indicate

that SOD activity in liver tissue homogenates was significantly

increased in the veh control, RF, NMel and NRF groups

compared to the nicotine-treated group. SOD activity was

also increased in the RF and RUF groups compared to the

water control. Additionally, SOD activity in the RF group was

increased when compared to the Mel group (Table 4). CAT

Phe (

μ

M)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

% Cumulative contraction

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

VEH control

Nicotine

*

ACh (M)

1.0

×

10

-8

3.2

×

10

-8

1.0

×

10

-7

3.2

×

10

-7

1.0

×

10

-6

3.2

×

10

-6

1.0

×

10

-5

3.2

×

10

-5

% Cumulative relaxation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

VEH control

Nicotine

Fig. 1.

(A) Contractile responses of aortic rings harvested from the veh control and nicotine-treated rats following cumulative Phe

administration (*

p

<

0.05 nicotine vs veh control). (B) relaxation response of aortic rings harvested from veh control and

nicotine treated rats following cumulative ACh administration.

A

B

Phe (

μ

M)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

% Cumulative contraction

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

RF

Water control

RUF

Mel

*

ACh (M)

1.0

×

10

-8

3.2

×

10

-8

1.0

×

10

-7

3.2

×

10

-7

1.0

×

10

-6

3.2

×

10

-6

1.0

×

10

-5

3.2

×

10

-5

% Cumulative relaxation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

RF

Water control

RUF

Mel

*

Fig. 2.

(A) Contractile responses of aortic rings from Mel, RF, RUF and water control animals following cumulative Phe administra-

tion (*

p

<

0.05 Mel vs RF, RUF and water control). (B) Relaxation response of aortic rings harvested from Mel, RF, RUF and

water control-treated rats following cumulative ACh administration. (*

p

<

0.05 water control vs Mel, RF and RUF).

A

B