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
Comparative Study
. 2025 Jan 2;15(1):389.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-83156-2.

Comparison of oxidative stress status in the kidney tissue of male rats treated with paraquat and nanoparaquat

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of oxidative stress status in the kidney tissue of male rats treated with paraquat and nanoparaquat

Fatemeh Bahramibanan et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

The study aimed to compare the oxidative stress status in the kidney tissue of rats treated with paraquat and nanoparaquat. The levels of oxidative stress markers, including malondialdehyde (MDA), total antioxidant capacity (TAC), and thiol groups (TTG), were measured in the kidney tissue samples. A total of forty male Wistar rats were randomly assigned to eight groups, each consisting of five rats: a control group, a paraquat (PQ) group, an N-acetylcysteine (NAC) group, groups receiving nanoparaquat α and β (α and β), groups receiving PQ and NAC (PQ + NAC), and groups receiving nanoparaquat α and β with NAC (+ NACα and β). Paraquat, a widely used herbicide, induces severe oxidative damage in kidneys through radical formation and cellular stress. Newly developed nanoparaquat formulations may modify its toxicity profile and tissue distribution patterns. The results revealed that rats treated with paraquat showed a significant increase in Lipid Peroxidation Oxidation (LPO) levels compared to the control group and those treated with NAC. However, treatment with nanoparaquat α and β resulted in a decrease in LPO levels compared to the paraquat-treated group. Additionally, when nanoparaquat α and β were administered in combination with NAC, a further reduction in LPO levels was observed compared to the PQ treated group. Regarding TAC levels, the PQ group exhibited a significant decrease compared to the control group and the NAC-treated group. However, treatment with nanoparaquat β resulted in higher TAC levels compared to the PQ group. Moreover, when nanoparaquat α and β were administered in combination with NAC, there was an increase in TAC levels compared to the PQ group. In terms of TTG levels, the PQ group showed a significant decrease compared to the control group and the NAC group. However, treatment with nanoparaquat β led to an increase in TTG levels compared to the PQ group. Furthermore, when nanoparaquat α and β were administered in combination with NAC, there was an increase in TTG levels compared to the PQ group. Overall, the results suggest that treatment with nanoparaquat, especially nanoparaquat β, may have a protective effect against oxidative stress induced by PQ toxicity in the kidney tissue of rats. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and potential therapeutic implications of nanoparaquat in oxidative stress-related kidney disorders.

Keywords: Chitosan; Kidney; Nanoparticles; Oxidative Stress; Paraquat; Rats.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial or non-financial interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Animal Ethical Considerations and Informed Consent: All protocols in this study were approved by the Committee on the Ethics of Animal Experiments of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee on Animal Care, Hamadan, Iran (IR.UMSHA.REC.1400.631), in compliance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals published by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH publication no.85 − 23, revised 1996). All experimental procedures and reporting follow the ARRIVE guidelines for animal research.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Serum BUN Levels in the Studied Groups. The number of animals in each group was 5. Data are reported as Mean ± SEM. *p < 0.05. Groups: Control: C, Paraquat: P, N-Acetylcysteine: NAC, Nano-Paraquat α and β: α, β.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Serum Creatinine Levels in the Studied Groups. The number of animals in each group was 5. Data are reported as Mean ± SEM. Groups: Control: C, Paraquat: P, N-Acetylcysteine: NAC, Nano-Paraquat α and β: α, β.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Serum TAC Levels in the Studied Groups. The number of animals in each group was 5. Data are reported as Mean ± SEM. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. Groups: Control: C, Paraquat: P, N-Acetylcysteine: NAC, Nano-Paraquat α and β: α, β.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Serum MDA Levels in the Studied Groups. The number of animals in each group was 5. Data are reported as Mean ± SEM. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Groups: Control: C, Paraquat: P, N-Acetylcysteine: NAC, Nano-Paraquat α and β: α, β.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Serum TTG Levels in the Studied Groups. The number of animals in each group was 5. Data are reported as Mean ± SEM. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. Groups: Control: C, Paraquat: P, N-Acetylcysteine: NAC, Nano-Paraquat α and β: α, β.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Representative kidney micrographs (H&E staining, 400x magnification) showing histological features across treatment groups. Control (A) and NAC (B) groups display normal renal architecture with intact glomeruli (GLU), well-defined Bowman’s space (BS), and healthy proximal (PCT) and distal convoluted tubules (DCT). Paraquat-treated group (C) exhibits severe tissue damage, including hemorrhage (H) and tubular necrosis (N). NAC co-treatment with paraquat (D) shows partial protection of renal structures. Nano-particle α treatment (E) and its combination with NAC (F) demonstrate modified tissue response compared to conventional paraquat. Similarly, nano-particle β alone (G) and with NAC (H) show distinct patterns of renal tissue alterations, suggesting different toxicity profiles from standard paraquat.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gawarammana, I. B. & Buckley, N. A. Medical management of paraquat ingestion. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.72 (5), 745–757 (2011). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pasi, A. The toxicity of paraquat, diquat and morfamquat. Vienna: Hans Huber. 13 – 5. (1978).
    1. Ozbek, E. Induction of oxidative stress in kidney. Int. J. Nephrol.2012 (1), 465897 (2012). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Karbasi, A. et al. Is nanoparaquat safer than bulk paraquat? An in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Toxicology484, 153398 (2023). - PubMed
    1. Fernandes, T., Soares, S. F., Trindade, T. & Daniel-da-Silva, A. L. Magnetic hybrid nanosorbents for the uptake of paraquat from water. Nanomaterials7 (3), 68 (2017). - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources