Limits...
Efficacy of Procyanidins against In Vivo Cellular Oxidative Damage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Li S, Xu M, Niu Q, Xu S, Ding Y, Yan Y, Guo S, Li F - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Statistically significant differences in the effects of PCs (P < 0.00001) were observed between these two methods.The effect of PCs on MDA was significantly greater in tissue samples than in serum samples (P = 0.02).The antagonistic effect may be related to intervention time, intervention method, and the source from which the indexes are estimated.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Public Health and Key Laboratory of Xinjiang Endemic and Ethnic Diseases (Ministry of Education), Shihezi University School of Medicine, Xinjiang, China.

ABSTRACT

Aims: In this study, the efficacy of proanthocyanidins (PCs) against oxidative damage was systematically reviewed to facilitate their use in various applications.

Methods: A meta-analysis was performed by two researchers. Each investigator independently searched electronic databases, including Cochrane, PubMed, Springer, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CKNI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (CSTJ), and WanFang Data, and analyzed published data from 29 studies on the effects of PCs against oxidative damage. Oxidative stress indexes included superoxide dismutase (SOD), malondialdehyde (MDA), catalase (CAT), glutathione (GSH), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and total antioxidative capacity (T-AOC).

Results: Compared with the oxidative damage model group, PCs effectively improved the T-AOC, SOD, GSH, GPx, and CAT levels, and reduced the MDA levels; these differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). In studies that used the gavage method, SOD (95% CI, 2.33-4.00) and GPx (95% CI, 2.10-4.05) were 3.16-fold and 3.08-fold higher in the PC group than in the control group, respectively. In studies that used the feeding method, SOD (95% CI, 0.32-1.74) and GPx (95% CI, -0.31 to 1.65) were 1.03-fold and 0.67-fold higher in the PC group than in the control group, respectively. Statistically significant differences in the effects of PCs (P < 0.00001) were observed between these two methods. MDA estimated from tissue samples (95% CI, -5.82 to -2.60) was 4.32-fold lower in the PC group than in the control group. In contrast, MDA estimated using serum samples (95% CI, -4.07 to -2.06) was 3.06-fold lower in the PC group than in the control group. The effect of PCs on MDA was significantly greater in tissue samples than in serum samples (P = 0.02).

Conclusion: PCs effectively antagonize oxidative damage and enhance antioxidant capacity. The antagonistic effect may be related to intervention time, intervention method, and the source from which the indexes are estimated.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Subgroup analyses to determine the effect of PC on oxidative damage.Based on a subgroup analysis, the effect of PC using the gavage mode was stronger than that observed using the feeding mode (P < 0.00001; A2, B2). The effect of PC on MDA measured in tissue samples was significantly stronger than that measured in serum samples (P = 0.02; C1). Abbreviations: SMD = standardized mean difference.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4591260&req=5

pone.0139455.g008: Subgroup analyses to determine the effect of PC on oxidative damage.Based on a subgroup analysis, the effect of PC using the gavage mode was stronger than that observed using the feeding mode (P < 0.00001; A2, B2). The effect of PC on MDA measured in tissue samples was significantly stronger than that measured in serum samples (P = 0.02; C1). Abbreviations: SMD = standardized mean difference.

Mentions: We conducted a subgroup analysis considering the mode of intervention (gavage vs. feed), intervention period (<30 d vs. ≥30 d), and source of samples (tissue vs. serum). The SMD between PCs and control groups for SOD and GPx of tissue samples, gavage, and ≥30-d interventions were higher than those for serum samples, feeding, and <30-d interventions (P < 0.05, see Fig 8A1, 8A2, 8B1, 8B2 and 8B3). Furthermore, the SMD of MDA between the PC and control groups was significantly higher for tissue samples than for serum samples (P < 0.05, see Fig 8C1). The SMD of CAT between the PC and control groups was also higher for interventions of ≥30 d than for those of <30 d (P < 0.05, see Fig 8D3). We did not detect statistically significant differences in GSH or T-AOC (see Fig 8C3, 8D1 and 8D2).


Efficacy of Procyanidins against In Vivo Cellular Oxidative Damage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Li S, Xu M, Niu Q, Xu S, Ding Y, Yan Y, Guo S, Li F - PLoS ONE (2015)

Subgroup analyses to determine the effect of PC on oxidative damage.Based on a subgroup analysis, the effect of PC using the gavage mode was stronger than that observed using the feeding mode (P < 0.00001; A2, B2). The effect of PC on MDA measured in tissue samples was significantly stronger than that measured in serum samples (P = 0.02; C1). Abbreviations: SMD = standardized mean difference.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4591260&req=5

pone.0139455.g008: Subgroup analyses to determine the effect of PC on oxidative damage.Based on a subgroup analysis, the effect of PC using the gavage mode was stronger than that observed using the feeding mode (P < 0.00001; A2, B2). The effect of PC on MDA measured in tissue samples was significantly stronger than that measured in serum samples (P = 0.02; C1). Abbreviations: SMD = standardized mean difference.
Mentions: We conducted a subgroup analysis considering the mode of intervention (gavage vs. feed), intervention period (<30 d vs. ≥30 d), and source of samples (tissue vs. serum). The SMD between PCs and control groups for SOD and GPx of tissue samples, gavage, and ≥30-d interventions were higher than those for serum samples, feeding, and <30-d interventions (P < 0.05, see Fig 8A1, 8A2, 8B1, 8B2 and 8B3). Furthermore, the SMD of MDA between the PC and control groups was significantly higher for tissue samples than for serum samples (P < 0.05, see Fig 8C1). The SMD of CAT between the PC and control groups was also higher for interventions of ≥30 d than for those of <30 d (P < 0.05, see Fig 8D3). We did not detect statistically significant differences in GSH or T-AOC (see Fig 8C3, 8D1 and 8D2).

Bottom Line: Statistically significant differences in the effects of PCs (P < 0.00001) were observed between these two methods.The effect of PCs on MDA was significantly greater in tissue samples than in serum samples (P = 0.02).The antagonistic effect may be related to intervention time, intervention method, and the source from which the indexes are estimated.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Public Health and Key Laboratory of Xinjiang Endemic and Ethnic Diseases (Ministry of Education), Shihezi University School of Medicine, Xinjiang, China.

ABSTRACT

Aims: In this study, the efficacy of proanthocyanidins (PCs) against oxidative damage was systematically reviewed to facilitate their use in various applications.

Methods: A meta-analysis was performed by two researchers. Each investigator independently searched electronic databases, including Cochrane, PubMed, Springer, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CKNI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (CSTJ), and WanFang Data, and analyzed published data from 29 studies on the effects of PCs against oxidative damage. Oxidative stress indexes included superoxide dismutase (SOD), malondialdehyde (MDA), catalase (CAT), glutathione (GSH), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and total antioxidative capacity (T-AOC).

Results: Compared with the oxidative damage model group, PCs effectively improved the T-AOC, SOD, GSH, GPx, and CAT levels, and reduced the MDA levels; these differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). In studies that used the gavage method, SOD (95% CI, 2.33-4.00) and GPx (95% CI, 2.10-4.05) were 3.16-fold and 3.08-fold higher in the PC group than in the control group, respectively. In studies that used the feeding method, SOD (95% CI, 0.32-1.74) and GPx (95% CI, -0.31 to 1.65) were 1.03-fold and 0.67-fold higher in the PC group than in the control group, respectively. Statistically significant differences in the effects of PCs (P < 0.00001) were observed between these two methods. MDA estimated from tissue samples (95% CI, -5.82 to -2.60) was 4.32-fold lower in the PC group than in the control group. In contrast, MDA estimated using serum samples (95% CI, -4.07 to -2.06) was 3.06-fold lower in the PC group than in the control group. The effect of PCs on MDA was significantly greater in tissue samples than in serum samples (P = 0.02).

Conclusion: PCs effectively antagonize oxidative damage and enhance antioxidant capacity. The antagonistic effect may be related to intervention time, intervention method, and the source from which the indexes are estimated.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus