Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28303105›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2017

Caloric Restriction Is More Efficient than Physical Exercise to Protect from Cisplatin Nephrotoxicity via PPAR-Alpha Activation.

Gabriel R Estrela, Frederick Wasinski, Rogério O Batista, Meire I Hiyane, Raphael J F Felizardo, Flavia Cunha, Danilo C de Almeida, Denise M A C Malheiros, Niels O S Câmara, Carlos C Barros and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Nephroprotective effect of exercise training in cisplatin-induced renal damage in mice: influence of training protocol.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. NADH/NADBiomolecules · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Gabriel R EstrelaDepartamento de Biofísica, Universidade Federal de São PauloSão Paulo, Brazil; Departamento de Medicina, Disciplina de Nefrologia, Universidade Federal de São PauloSão Paulo, Brazil.
Frederick WasinskiDepartamento de Biofísica, Universidade Federal de São PauloSão Paulo, Brazil; Departamento de Medicina, Disciplina de Nefrologia, Universidade Federal de São PauloSão Paulo, Brazil.
Rogério O BatistaDepartamento de Biofísica, Universidade Federal de São PauloSão Paulo, Brazil; Departamento de Medicina, Disciplina de Nefrologia, Universidade Federal de São PauloSão Paulo, Brazil.
Meire I HiyaneDepartamento de Imunologia, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Universidade de São Paulo São Paulo, Brazil.
Raphael J F FelizardoDepartamento de Medicina, Disciplina de Nefrologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo São Paulo, Brazil.
Flavia CunhaDepartamento de Medicina, Disciplina de Nefrologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo São Paulo, Brazil.
Danilo C de AlmeidaDepartamento de Medicina, Disciplina de Nefrologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo São Paulo, Brazil.
Denise M A C MalheirosDepartamento de Clinica Médica, Universidade de São Paulo São Paulo, Brazil.
Niels O S CâmaraDepartamento de Imunologia, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Universidade de São Paulo São Paulo, Brazil.
Carlos C BarrosDepartamento de Nutrição, Escola de Nutrição, Universidade Federal de Pelotas Pelotas, Brazil.
Michael BaderMax-Delbruck Center for Molecular Medicine Berlin, Germany.
Ronaldo C AraujoDepartamento de Biofísica, Universidade Federal de São Paulo São Paulo, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de São Paulo · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRHospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRMax Delbrück Center · DEUniversidade Federal de Pelotas · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The antineoplastic drug cisplatin promotes renal injury, which limits its use. Protocols that reduce renal cisplatin toxicity will allow higher doses to be used in cisplatin treatment. Here, we compare physical exercise and caloric restriction (CR) as protocols to reduce cisplatin renal injury in mice. Male C57BL/6 were divided into four groups: Control, cisplatin, exercise + cisplatin, and 30% CR + cisplatin. Animals were injected with a single dose of cisplatin (20 mg/kg i.p.) and sacrificed 96 h after injection. Quantitative real time PCR, histological analyses, immunohistochemistry, and biochemical measurements were performed to investigate renal injury, necrosis, apoptosis, and inflammatory mechanisms. Both protocols protected against cisplatin renal injury, but CR was more effective in reducing uraemia and renal necrosis. The CR + Cisplatin group exhibited reduced serum IL-1β and TNF-α levels. No differences were noted in the renal mRNA expression of cytokines. Both interventions reduced apoptosis, but only the CR + Cisplatin group decreased TNFR2 protein expression. PPAR-α was activated in mice after CR. An antagonist of PPAR-α blocked the protective effect of CR. Both interventions attenuated the nephrotoxicity caused by cisplatin injection, but CR + Cisplatin showed a better response by modulating TNFR2. Moreover, part of the CR benefit depends on PPAR-α activation.

Indexed as

caloric restrictioncisplatin nephrotoxicityexerciseinflammationPPAR-alpha

Identifiers

PMID28303105
PMCPMC5332405
OpenAlexW2592395438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.