Effect of vitamin E therapy on serum uric acid in DOCA-salt-treated rats

Department of Physiology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Acta Physiologica Hungarica (Impact Factor: 0.73). 06/2011; 98(2):214-20. DOI: 10.1556/APhysiol.98.2011.2.13
Source: PubMed


Uric acid is considered as an antioxidant in the blood. Despite its proposed protective properties, elevated plasma uric acid has been associated with hypertension in a variety of disorders. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the increase of arterial blood pressure and the changes in serum uric acid, measured during the gradual development of experimental hypertension in deoxycorticosterone (DOCA)-salt-treated rats. Blood pressure was monitored by tail-cuff method, urinary and plasma uric acid was measured by autoanalyzer during the induction of hypertension in 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-week DOCA-salt-treated Sprague-Dawley rats. Vitamin E (200 mg/kg/day/gavage) was co-administered with DOCA-salt for 4 weeks. From the first week of DOCA-salt treatment, rats exhibited marked increases in blood pressure. DOCA-salt treatment also resulted in a significant increase in serum uric acid and a significant decrease in urinary uric acid at the end of the first week. These changes in serum and urinary uric acid remained until the 4th week of DOCA-salt treatment but blood pressure continued to increase throughout the study. Vitamin E treatment increased urinary excretion of uric acid and decreased blood pressure and serum uric acid in DOCA-salt-treated rats. These data suggest that enhanced serum uric acid may be a contributing factor to the onset of hypertension in DOCA-salt-treated rats. A uricosuric effect is suggested for vitamin E in the treatment of hypertension.

1 Follower
25 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Uric acid values were obtained on subjects of the original Framingham cohort at their fourth and 13th biennial examinations. The mean uric acid value for men was 5.0 mg/dl at the fourth examination and 5.7 mg/dl at examination 13 and was 3.9 mg/dl and 4.7 mg/dl, respectively, for women. This secular trend was due to both "laboratory drift" and increasing use of diuretics. Serum uric acid values were consistently higher in subjects of both sexes who were taking antihypertensive drugs at both examinations. Serum uric acid values correlated with systolic and diastolic blood pressure in both sexes; the relationship was stronger in women than in men and for systolic than for diastolic pressure. Correlations were stronger at examination 4 than at examination 13 when more antihypertensive treatment was used. Examination 4 serum uric acid predicted the subsequent development of coronary heart disease, in general, and myocardial infarction, in particular, but not angina pectoris. The uric acid relationship with myocardial infarction was equally strong in both sexes, even correcting for antihypertensive treatment. However, in multivariate analysis, including age, systolic blood pressure, relative weight, cigarette smoking, and serum cholesterol, serum uric acid did not add independently to the prediction of coronary heart disease.
    American Journal of Epidemiology 02/1985; 121(1):11-8. · 5.23 Impact Factor
  • Australian and New Zealand journal of medicine 05/1980; 10(2):246-52. DOI:10.1111/j.1445-5994.1980.tb03723.x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The effects of large and oral doses of ascorbic acid on renal clearance and excretion of uric acid were studied in nongouty subjects because ascorbic acid has been reported to increase renal uric acid clearance. Our results indicate that 4 or 12 gm ascorbic acid taken in divided doses had no effect on serum uric acid concentration or uric acid excretion and clearance by the kidney. Reasons for these results, which differ from previous reports, are discussed. We quantitated the magnitude of the interference of ascorbic acid in the measurement of uric acid by the nonspecific methods frequently used, since falsely elevated urine uric acid could lead to misinterpretation of screening tests.
    Clinical Pharmacology &#38 Therapeutics 04/1981; 29(3):318-21. DOI:10.1038/clpt.1981.42 · 7.90 Impact Factor
Show more