Back to all available

Impact of Antenatal Steroid Treatment on Steroidogenic Function and Apoptotic Remodeling in the Suprarenal Cortex of Neonatal Rats

cell-biology
anatomy-and-physiology
pharmacology
translational-medicine
histology

Abstract

Background: Antenatal use of steroids is a common practice in pregnancy for the treatment of various autoimmune diseases. The prolonged administration of exogenous glucocorticoids to pregnant women exerts a direct effect on the suprarenal gland structure and functions of neonates and infants.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the impact of prenatal dexamethasone and hydrocortisone on fetal suprarenal cortical structure and StAR protein expression in early and late pregnancy at 1 and 15 days postnatal age.

Methods: 40 pregnant rats were included in this study, allocated into two experimental groups in early or late pregnancy, as dexamethasone (1 mg/kg/once/day) or hydrocortisone (9 mg/kg/day/every 8 h) IP injection in early or late pregnancy. The control group of 20 pregnant rats received (1 ml N.S). At 1 and 15 days of age, Neonatal suprarenal glands were assessed for histological architecture by H&E, StAR immunohistochemistry, and TUNEL assay.

Results: Both dexamethasone and hydrocortisone induced marked histological changes, including necrosis, apoptosis, and fibrosis, especially in dexamethasone-treated neonates, with statistically significant reduction in StAR protein expression in 1 and 15-day-old neonates.

Conclusion: Antenatal dexamethasone treatment in late pregnancy affects suprarenal gland development and function with cell loss through apoptosis and necrosis, which eventually reduces the steroidogenesis function of the suprarenal cortex.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].