Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar 31;54(1):93-103.
doi: 10.5115/acb.20.200.

Ameliorative effects of curcumin and caffeic acid against short term exposure of waterpipe tobacco smoking on lung, heart and kidney in mice

Affiliations

Ameliorative effects of curcumin and caffeic acid against short term exposure of waterpipe tobacco smoking on lung, heart and kidney in mice

Alia Khwaldeh et al. Anat Cell Biol. .

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the chemopreventive activity of two antioxidants (curcumin [CUM] and caffeic acid [CAF]), focusing on how these antioxidants could reduce cytotoxicity induced by short term secondhand exposure of waterpipe tobacco smoking. Forty-eight adult male BALB/c albino mice were equally divided into four groups. Antioxidants were delivered intraperitoneally, and the exposure to waterpipe smoking (WPS) was performed using a smoking machine. This experiment lasts for 14 consecutive days. Serum were collected from mice before dissection to quantify the activity of some liver enzymes, kidney function tests and proinflammatory cytokines. Lung, heart, and kidney were isolated and processed for light microscopy technique. Parallel treatment of CUM or CAF along with exposure to WPS showed less inflammation, less vacuolized, and more inflated alveoli, less deteriorations in cortex part of kidney, and less disintegration of cardiac myofibers in comparison to waterpipe only. Besides, CUM and CAF significantly reduced the activity of aspartate aminotransferase and proinflammatory cytokines. CUM and CAF were found to have anti-inflammatory and ameliorative effects against the cytotoxicity induced by exposure to waterpipe tobacco smoking, and CUM showed better chemopreventive activity than CAF.

Keywords: Antioxidants; Biochemical parameters; Histopathology; Hookah; Proinflammatory cytokines.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The main components of this study (WPS, CUM, and CAF); (A) shows a typical waterpipe with a brief illustration of its parts. Chemical structure of CUM (B) and CAF (C) with three-dimensional conformer represented in ball and stick model. CAF, caffeic acid; CUM, curcumin; WPS, waterpipe smoking. Adapted from Bhatnagar et al. Circulation 2019;139:e917-36, according to the Creative Commons license PubChem [1].
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
List of toxicant contents generated from tobacco-based waterpipe smoking, according to Shihadeh et al. [5]. Adapted from Shihadeh et al. Tob Control 2015;24(Suppl 1):i22-30 [5].
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Bar charts for illustration level of different liver function, kidney function, and proinflammatory cytokines in serum samples of albino mice; (A) for the concentration of ALT; (B) for the concentration of AST; (C) for the concentration of LDH; (D) for quantifying the level of creatinine; (E) for the level of BUN; (F) shows the level for IL-1β; (G) shows the level for IL-6, and (H) shows the level for TNF-α. Asterisks (*, **, ***) indicates for (P<0.05, P<0.01, P<0.001) respectively, and (NS) indicates for no significant result when P≥0.05. Significance against the control group written in blue color, whereas against WPS group written in red. WPS, WPS+CUM, and WPS+CAF respectively. ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; CAF, caffeic acid; CUM, curcumin; IL-1β, interleukin-1 beta; IL-6, interleukin-6; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; NS, not significant; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor-alpha; WPS, waterpipe smoking.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Thin sections of 5 µm for the lung of different experimental groups in this study; (A) represents the control group; (B) for WPS; (C) for CUM+WPS; (D) for CAF+WPS. CAF, caffeic acid; CUM, curcumin; WPS, waterpipe smoking. Sections were stained with H&E, magnification, ×400. Scale bars=50 µm, n=13 (A–D).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Thin sections of 5 µm for the heart of different experimental groups in this study; (A) represents the control group; (B) for WPS; (C) for CUM+WPS; (D) for CAF+WPS. CAF, caffeic acid; CUM, curcumin; WPS, waterpipe smoking. Sections were stained with H&E, magnification, ×400. Scale bars=50 µm, n=13 (A–D).
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Thin sections of 5 µm for the kidney of different experimental groups in this study; (A) represents the control group; (B) for WPS; (C) for CUM+ WPS; (D) for CAF+WPS. CAF, caffeic acid; CUM, curcumin; WPS, waterpipe smoking. Sections were stained with H&E, magnification, ×400. Scale bars= 50 µm, n=13 (A–D).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bhatnagar A, Maziak W, Eissenberg T, Ward KD, Thurston G, King BA, Sutfin EL, Cobb CO, Griffiths M, Goldstein LB, Rezk-Hanna M. Water pipe (hookah) smoking and cardiovascular disease risk: a scientific statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;139:e917–36. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000671. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation (TobReg), author Waterpipe tobacco smoking: health effects, research needs and recommended actions for regulators. 2nd ed. WHO; Geneva: 2015.
    1. Jukema JB, Bagnasco DE, Jukema RA. Waterpipe smoking: not necessarily less hazardous than cigarette smoking: possible consequences for (cardiovascular) disease. Neth Heart J. 2014;22:91–9. doi: 10.1007/s12471-013-0501-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kaplan B, Sussan T, Rule A, Moon K, Grau-Perez M, Olmedo P, Chen R, Carkoglu A, Levshin V, Wang L, Watson C, Blount B, Calafat AM, Jarrett J, Caldwell K, Wang Y, Breysse P, Strickland P, Cohen J, Biswal S, Navas-Acien A. Waterpipe tobacco smoke: characterization of toxicants and exposure biomarkers in a cross-sectional study of waterpipe employees. Environ Int. 2019;127:495–502. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.03.074. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shihadeh A, Schubert J, Klaiany J, El Sabban M, Luch A, Saliba NA. Toxicant content, physical properties and biological activity of waterpipe tobacco smoke and its tobacco-free alternatives. Tob Control. 2015;24(Suppl 1):i22–30. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051907. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources