Evaluates rosiridin's effect on liver dysfunction in experimental rats, suggesting promising hepatoprotective outcomes.
Background Liver cirrhosis, a chronic and progressive liver disease, represents the end-stage of several hepatic injuries, characterized by widespread fibrosis, nodule formation, and ultimately, liver dysfunction and failure. Existing treatments often focus on managing complications rather than addressing the underlying pathological processes, which underscores the need for safer, potentially alternative therapeutic agents. Purpose The present work was performed to assess the ameliorative mechanisms and hepatoprotective properties of rosiridin against thioacetamide-induced liver cirrhosis in experimental rats. Materials and Methods Liver cirrhosis was experimentally induced in rats by administering 200 mg/kg of thioacetamide thrice per week for 2 months. Rosiridin and silymarin were administered to the rats for 2 months. After treatments, liver dysfunction markers and biochemical parameters were evaluated in the experimental rats. The concentrations of inflammatory and oxidative stress markers were evaluated in the experimental rats. The liver tissues were obtained and underwent histopathological assessments. Results The present findings demonstrate that rosiridin treatment markedly reduced liver dysfunction markers and regulated serum biochemical markers in thioacetamide-induced rats. Furthermore, the treatment with rosiridin considerably reduced the pro-inflammatory cytokine levels and oxidative stress markers, while enhancing the antioxidant concentrations in the thioacetamide-induced rats. In addition, histopathological analysis revealed that rosiridin ameliorated histopathological alterations in thioacetamide-induced rats. Conclusion The findings of this work indicated that rosiridin markedly ameliorated the development of thioacetamide-triggered liver cirrhosis in rats. These findings highlight that rosiridin may serve as a promising treatment agent for liver cirrhosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: