The influence of chronic low intensity radiation on human body is mediated not only by the consequences of technogenic catastrophies but also application of radiation therapy, which results in numerous negative side effects from the side of digestive organs (development of stomach ulceration, bleeding in small intestine, occurrence of radiation enteritis or colitis). The search for new substances that may have cyto- and radioprotective effect on the mucous membrane of the digestive organs and in this way prevent or enhance healing of the destructive damage or increased cell proliferation is an actual task.

The studies were conducted on white non-linear rats weighing 200–240 g (n = 40). The animals were divided into 8 groups: the first – control group animals; the second – animals, which during 20 days were irradiated in daily dose of 1 sGy with apparatus RUM-17 (total dose made 20 sGy); the third – animals, which twice per week per os were injected 1.4-naphtoquinone derivative – 3-[3-(3.5-di-tret-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-1.4- dihydronaphtenyl] dosed 30 mg/kg on the background of irradiation; the fourth – animals, which on the 20th day were injected indomethacin (10 mg/kg) on the background of irradiation; the fifth – animals, which on the 20th day on the background of irradiation and effect of 1.4.-naphtoquinone derivative were injected with indomethacin.

In homogenates of the mucous membranes of stomach (MMS), small intestine (MMSI) and large intestine (MMLI) activities of NO-synthase, arginase, myeloperoxidase (MPO), catalase, content of TBA-active products and nitrite-anion were determined. Statistical procession of experimental results were performed using applied software ANOVA “Statistica”. The difference at р < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Total X-ray irradiation in dose 20 sGy on the 20th day caused the increase of lipid peroxidation processes, nitrite anion content, activity of MPO, inducible NO-synthase (iNOS) and catalase in MMS, MMSI and MMLI compared to control animals. Blockage of COX-1/COX-2 with indomethacin on the background of irradiation caused to increase of TBA-active products content and MPO activity in MMS, MMSI, MMLI compared to indices obtained under the conditions of independent effect of irradiation, what indicates intensification of lipid peroxidation processes. At that, decrease of activity of iNOS and cNOS in investigated organs was noted. Independent effect of COX-1/COX-2 inhibitor indomethacin, differently from the effect of indomethacin on the background of irradiation, caused an increase of TBA-active products content, activity iNOS and sum of nitrates and nitrites, whereas activity of catalase and MPO decreased.

The effect of 1.4-naphtoquinone on the background of irradiation decreased activity of iNOS in MMS, MMSI and MMLI; caused tendency to decrease of TBA-active products content and increase of MPO activity in investigated organs, increased activity of catalase in MMLI. Activity of SOD in MMS and MMLI had tendency to decrease, whereas in MMSI it increased for 38 %. Introduction of 1.4-naphtoquinone on the background of the simultaneous effect of X-ray and COX blockage caused decrease of the content of TBA-active products in MMS for 14 % (р < 0.05), in MMSI – for 12 % (р < 0.05), in MMLI – for 10 % (р < 0.05) and activity of iNOS – in MMS for 19 % (р < 0.05), in MMSI – for 33 % (р < 0.05), in MMLI – for 11 % (р > 0.05); increase of сNOS activity and tendency to increase of the activity of catalase and MPO.

Thus, the effect of 1.4-naphtoquinone derivative – 3-[3-(3.5-di-tret-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)- 1.4-dihydronaphtalene-2-aminoil] butyrate acid exerted a pronounced antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and radioprotective action both under the conditions of X-ray irradiation and simultaneous effect of X-ray irradiation and blockage of COX-1/COX-2, what allows to consider this substance as a perspective radioprotectant.

Keywords: X-rays, oxidative processes nitroso, vitamin E, 1, 4-naphthoquinone derivative, organs of the digestive system

Full text: PDF (Ukr)

1. 1. Datsyuk L, Peretiatko U, Starenko U.The effects of administration of nonselective inhibitor of NO-synthase under X-ray radiation. Studia biologica.2009;3(3):51-58.
2. 2. Koroluk M, Ivanova L, Mayorova I. Method of determination of catalase activity. Lab. business.1988;1:16-19.
3. 3. Timirbulatov R, Seleznev E. Method for increasing the in tensity of free radical oxidation of lipidcontaining components of the blood and its diagnostic signifi cance. Lab. business. 1981;4:209-211.
4. 4. Chevari S, Andyal T, Shtrenger Y. Determination of blood parameters and their role for Diagnosticsin Elderly Age.Lab. business. 1991;10:9-13.
5. 5. Figurka O, Kurka M, Drapak I. Synthesis and properties of 3-chloro-2-(3,5-di-tert-buthyl-4- hydroxyphenil)-1,4-naphtoquinones.Annals of National University "Lviv Polytechnics".Chemistry, technology of substances and their application. 2014;787:224-228.
6. 6. Akita S. Treatment of Radiation Injury.Adv. Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2014;3(1):1-11. doi.org/10.1089/wound.2012.0403
7. 7. Anwar M. Effect of antioxidant supplementation on digestive enzymes in radiation induced intestinal damage in rats.Int. J. Radiat. Biol.2013;8(12):1061-1070.
 doi.org/10.3109/09553002.2013.825062
8. 8.Boyde J, Rahmotullah M. Optimization of conditions for the colorimetric determination of citrulline, using diacethylmonoxim. Anal. Biochem. 1980;107:424-431.
 doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(80)90404-2
9. 9. Bradley P, Christensen R, Rothstein G. Cellular and extracellular myeloperoxidase in pyogenic inflammation. Blood. 1982;60:618-622.
10. 10.Brzozowski T, Konturek P, Konturek S. Role of prostaglandins in gastroprotection and gastric adaptation. J. Physiol. Pharmacol.2005;56(5):33-55.
12. 12. Fomenko I, Sklyarov A, Bondarchuk T. Efects of conventional and hydrogen sulfide-releasing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rats with stress-induced and epinephrine-induced gastric damage .Stress. 2014;17(6):528-537.
doi.org/10.3109/10253890.2014.967207
13. 13.Geyer J, Dabich D. Rapid method for determination of arginase activity in tissue hom. Foogenates.Anal.Biochem. 1971;39(2):412-417.
 doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(71)90431-3
14. 14. Green L, David A. Analysis of nitrate, nitrite and (1515) nitrate in biological fluids.Anal.Biochem. 1982;126:131-138.
 doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(82)90118-X
15. 15. Henni M, Ali D. Radiation induced side effects. Rev. Prat. 2012;62:461-466.
16. 16. Hernбndez L, Terradas М, Camps J. Aging and radiation: bad companions.Aging Cell. 2015;14(2):153-161.
 doi.org/10.1111/acel.12306
17. 17. Huang E, Wang F, Lin I. Aminoguanidine alleviates radiation-induced small-bowel damage through its antioxidant effect.Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2009;74(1):237-244.
 doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.01.017
18. 18.Liu L, ShiL, Li S. Protective Role of Rheum Tanguticum Polysaccharide 1 in Radiation- induced Intestinal Mucosal Injury. Iran J. Pharm. Res. 2015;14(3):833-841.
19. 19.Pisoschi A, Pop A. The role of antioxidants in the chemistry of oxidative stress: A review. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2015;5(97):55-74.
 doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2015.04.040
20. 20.Stacey R,Green J. Radiation-induced small bowel disease: latest developments and clinical guidance.Ther.Adv. Chronic. Dis.2014;5(1):15-29. 21. SzumielI.Ionizing radiationinduced oxidative stress, epigenetic changes and genomic instability: the pivotal role of mitochondria. Int. J. Radiat. Biol.2015;91(1):1-12.
22. 22. Theis V, Sripadam R, Ramani V. Chronic radiation enteritis.ClinOncol (R. Coll. Radiol)2010;22(1):70-83.
 doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2009.10.003
23. 23. Wallace J. Prostaglandins, NSAIDs, and gastric mucosal protection: why doesn't the stomach digest itself? Physiol Rev.2008;88(4):1547-1565.
 doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00004.2008