摘要
目的:通过对卒中模型大鼠炎性细胞因子(IL-1,IL-6、TNF-α)表达的观察,评价田黄冲剂对卒中模型大鼠脑损伤的干预作用。方法:将健康雄性Wistar大鼠随机分为模型组和干预组,对造模成功的干预组大鼠分别给予中药、西药、中西药和生理盐水干预;于不同时段对模型组和干预组大鼠进行行为学观察,并检测脑组织IL-1、IL-6、TNF-α含量。结果:(1)Zea-Longa评分:盐水组评分无明显变化;中药组和西药组评分均有不同程度下降,但以中西药组下降最明显。(2)炎性细胞因子的表达:与模型组0 h比较:盐水组各时段多有显著统计学意义(P<0.01)。中药组和西药组24 h时段均有显著统计学意义(P<0.01);其他时段多有统计学意义(P<0.05)。中西药组24 h时段有统计学意义(P<0.05);其他时段多无统计学意义(P>0.05)。与盐水组比较:6 h时段各组均无统计学意义(P>0.05);24 h时段中药组多无统计学意义(P>0.05),西药组均有统计学意义(P<0.05),中西药组均有显著统计学意义(P<0.01);48h时段中药组和西药组均有统计学意义(P<0.05),中西药组均有显著统计学意义(P<0.01);72 h时段中药组和西药组均有统计学意义(P<0.05),中西药组均有显著统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论:田黄冲剂可有效抑制卒中模型大鼠炎性细胞因子的表达,进而减轻了脑损伤后的炎症级联反应,起到了脑保护作用。
Objective ： By observing the expressions of inflammatory cytokines in rats model of stroke （ IL - 1, IL - 6 and TNF -α） ,to evaluate the intervention effect of Tianhuang Granule on brain injury in stroke model in rats. Methods： Healthy male Wistar rats were randomly divided into model group and intervention group. The intervention group was given traditional Chinese medicine, Western medicine, traditional Chinese and Western medicine and saline intervention. We made the behavior observation of the model group and intervention group rats in different times, and detected the contents of IL - 6, IL - 1 and TNF - ct in brain tissue. Results ： （ 1 ） The score of Zea - Longa： Saline group had no significant change. Traditional Chinese medicine group and Western medicine group were decreased in varying degrees, but the traditional Chinese and Western medicine group decreased most obviously. （ 2 ） The expressions of inflammatolT cytokines ： Compared with model group of 0 h ： saline group each time was sta- tistically significant （ P 〈 0.01 ）. Traditional Chinese medicine group and Western medicine group of 24 h period were statistically significant （P 〈0.01 ）. Traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine group were statistically significant of 24 h period （P 〈 0.05）. Other periods had no statistical significance （ P 〉 O. 05 ）. Compared with saline group ： of 6 h period, each group was not statistically significant（ P 〉 0.05 ） ;of 24 h period ,traditional Chinese medicine groups were not significant （P 〉 0.05 ）and West- ern medicine groups were statistically significant （ P 〈 0.05 ）. Traditional Chinese and Western medicine groups were greatly statistical significant （P 〈 0.01 ）. Of 48 h period, both traditional Chinese medicine groups and Western medicine groups were statistically significant （ P 〈 0.05 ）. Traditional Chinese and Western medicine groups were greatly statistical significant （ P 〈 0.01 ）. Of 72 h period, both tradit
出处
《辽宁中医杂志》
CAS
2014年第7期1520-1523,I0002,共5页
Liaoning Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine
基金
天津市中医
中西医结合专项基金课题(11089)
