# The Effect of Nerolidol Renal Dysfunction following Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in the Rat
## 4 Results
### Gene Expression Analysis Results  
As shown in Figure 2, IRI caused a significant increase in the gene expression of KIM-1 and NGAL, as demonstrated by comparing G-IRI to G-Sham (588.3 \(\pm\) 92.6 vs. 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.07 and 24.4 \(\pm\) 3.5 vs. 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.08, respectively; \(p<\) 0.001 for both). Nerolidol administration significantly attenuated this increase in the markers (173.4 \(\pm\) 51.3 vs. 588.3 \(\pm\) 92.6, \(p<\) 0.01 and 13.9 \(\pm\) 3.1 vs. 24.4 \(\pm\) 3.5, \(p<\) 0.05, respectively). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Group**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **G-Sham** & **G-IRI** & **G-IRI/NR** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**G-Sham**} & \multirow{2}{*}{Basal} & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\  & & Pre-IRI & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\  & & Post-IRI & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 1.51 \(\pm\) 0.48 * & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.02 *,5 \\  & & Basal & 28.9 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 29.0 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 31.1 \(\pm\) 2.8 \\  & & Pre-IRI & 26.6 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 30.7 \(\pm\) 2.8 & 28.8 \(\pm\) 2.3 \\  & & Post-IRI & 25.4 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 82.2 \(\pm\) 19.8 * & 31.7 \(\pm\) 2.1 5 \\  & & Basal & 62.3 \(\pm\) 4.3 & 64.7 \(\pm\) 9.1 & 63.5 \(\pm\) 5.7 \\  & & Pre-IRI & 72.7 \(\pm\) 3.4 & 69.9 \(\pm\) 6.6 & 67.0 \(\pm\) 5.1 \\  & & Post-IRI & 76.4 \(\pm\) 3.0 & 33.5 \(\pm\) 7.8 * & 74.1 \(\pm\) 2.8 5 \\  & & (1) & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Serum creatinine, serum urea and creatinine clearance in all groups before administration of nerolidol/vehicle (basal values), after administration and on the third day following IRI of the nerolidol/vehicle, just before ischemia–reperfusion injury (Pre-IRI) (Post-IRI). * Indicates statistical significance when compared to the Pre-IRI within the same group; 5 indicates statistical significance compared to the G-IRI group. Values are expressed as mean \(\pm\) SEM. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\$**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Group**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\ast\)} & **G-Sham** & **G-IRI** & **G-IRI/NR** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**G-Sham**} & \multirow{2}{*}{Basal} & 0.073 \(\pm\) 0.005 & 0.078 \(\pm\) 0.013 & 0.073 \(\pm\) 0.009 \\ \cline{2-5}  & & Pre-IRI & 0.077 \(\pm\) 0.006 & 0.079 \(\pm\) 0.009 & 0.079 \(\pm\) 0.006 \\ \cline{2-5}  & & Post-IRI & 0.069 \(\pm\) 0.005 & 0.783 \(\pm\) 0.111 * & 0.570 \(\pm\) 0.078 *,5 \\ \cline{2-5}  & & Basal & 13.9 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 13.1 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 13.6 \(\pm\) 1.7 \\ \cline{2-5}  & & Pre-IRI & 13.9 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 13.7 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 13.8 \(\pm\) 0.8 \\ \cline{2-5}  & & Post-IRI & 12.4 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 166.1 \(\pm\) 27.0 * & 88.8 \(\pm\) 11.0 *,5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The 24 h urinary albumin and albumin/creatinine ratio in all groups before administration of the nerolidol/vehicle (basal values), after administration of the nerolidol/vehicle, just before the ischemia–reperfusion injury (Pre-IRI) and on the third day following IRI (Post-IRI). * Indicates statistical significance compared to the Pre-IRI within the same group; 5 indicates statistical significance compared to the G-IRI group. Values are expressed as mean \(\pm\) SEM. A similar effect was observed in relation to proinflammatory, profibrotic and proapoptotic cytokines (Figures 3-5). For instance, IRI led to a significant increase in the gene expression of TGF-\(\beta\)1 in the G-IRI compared to G-Sham (1.88 \(\pm\) 0.13 vs. 1.01 \(\pm\) 0.06, \(p\)! 0.001), whereas nerolidol significantly attenuated this increase (1.46 \(\pm\) 0.06 vs. 1.88 \(\pm\) 0.13, \(p\)! 0.01). Similar effects were observed in the gene expression of TNF-\(\alpha\), PAI-1, IL-6, IL-1\(\beta\) and p53 (\(p\)! 0.05 for all these mediators). The gene expression of procollagen type-1 (COLA-1) showed a similar trend, as the IRI caused a significant increase in the gene expression of COLA-1 in G-IRI compared to the G-Sham (3.10 \(\pm\) 0.41 vs. 1.03 \(\pm\) 0.12, \(p\)! 0.001) (Figure 5).