Phytochemical analysis and nephroprotective effect of cactus (<i>Opuntia ficus-indica</i>) cladodes on sodium dichromate-induced kidney injury in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental and occupational exposure to chromium compounds, especially hexavalent chromium, is widely recognized as potentially nephrotoxic in humans and animals. The present study aimed to assess the efficacy of cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica) against sodium dichromate-induced nephrotoxicity, oxidative stress, and genotoxicity. Cactus cladodes extract (CCE) was phytochemically studied and tested in vitro for its potential antioxidant activities. Additionally, the preventive effect of CCE against sodium dichromate-induced renal dysfunction in a Wistar rat model (24 rats) was evaluated. For this purpose, CCE at a dose of 100 mg/kg was orally administered, followed by 10 mg/kg sodium dichromate (intraperitoneal injection). After 40 days of treatment, the rats were sacrificed, and the kidneys were excised for histological, lipid peroxidation, and antioxidant enzyme analyses. The phenol, flavonoid, tannin, ascorbic acid, and carotenoid contents of CCE were considered to be important. Our analyses showed that 1 mL of CCE was equivalent to 982.5 ± 1.79 μg of gallic acid, 294.37 ± 0.84 μg of rutin, 234.78 ± 0.24 μg of catechin, 204.34 ± 1.53 μg of ascorbic acid, and 3.14 ± 0.51 μg of β-carotene. In vivo, pretreatment with CCE was found to provide significant protection against sodium dichromate-induced nephrotoxicity by inhibiting lipid peroxidation, preserving normal antioxidant activities, and protecting renal tissues from lesions and DNA damage. The nephroprotective potential of CCE against sodium dichromate toxicity might be due to its antioxidant properties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".