ArticleInternational journal of health sciences
Anticancer effects of
Article in International journal of health sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLead poisoning accounts for about 0.6% of global burden of disease. Lead-induced toxicity is through confinement of oxidative stress in affected organs. We evaluated the effects of MLF1 (extracted from
methodsSixty adult female rats were randomly divided into 12 groups (n = 5). Groups 1 and 2 received physiological saline and 100 mg/kg bodyweight of LA, respectively, for 5 weeks. Groups 3-6 received 100 mg/kg bodyweight LA for 2 weeks, followed by treatments with 7.5 and 15 mg/kg bodyweight of MLF1, and 7.5 and 10 mg/kg bodyweight of AMF1, respectively, for 3 weeks. Groups 7-10 received 7.5 and 15 mg/kg bodyweight of MLF1, 7.5 and 10 mg/kg bodyweight of AMF1, respectively, for 5 weeks. Groups 11-12 received co-administrations of 100 mg/kg bodyweight LA with 15 mg/kg bodyweight MLF1 and 10 mg/kg bodyweight of AMF1, respectively, for 5 weeks. Drugs and extracts were administered orally. Consequently, liver histopathology (Hematoxylin and Eosin), sera Melatonin, and TNF-α (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) levels were evaluated. Malondialdehyde (MDA) (thiobarbituric acid assay) and p53 (ELISA) levels were evaluated in liver homogenates. Data were statistically analyzed (P ≤ 0.05).
resultsResults showed normal liver histology in all Groups. Statistical analyses showed significant (P ≤ 0.05) and non-significant decreased levels (P ≥ 0.05) of MDA, TNF-α and p53 in Groups 3-12, compared with Group 2. Furthermore, results showed significant (P ≤ 0.05) and non-significant increased Melatonin levels (P ≥ 0.05) in Groups 4-12 compared with Group 2.
conclusionThis study confirmed that MLF1 and AMF1 confer a degree of antioxidant, anticancer and hepato-protetive potentials against LA-induced toxicity in rats.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34285685PMC8265306W3183187102What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.