As indicated by the results of this study, both models of IR showed some degree of liver injury as a remote organ although the simultaneously nephrectomized model produced more prominent alterations. Previous studies reported that renal IR could disturb liver function and morphology [
9,
10]. Kadkhodaee et al. suggested that a minimum of 45 minutes ischemia period is necessary to produce the liver damage as a remote organ [
10]. Wang et al. showed that 1 hour ischemia and 4 or 8 hours reperfusion of the kidney increased the serum ALT and AST which seemed to be due to the hepatic cell membrane damage [
9].
In the present study the serum concentrations of ALT, ALP and LDH increased significantly following renal IR, but such elevation was not seen in AST level. It believed that the increase of aminotransferase concentrations is due to their enhanced release from damaged or dead hepatocytes and not to an increased enzyme synthesis [
11]. Among hepatic enzymes, ALT is largely liver specific, while AST is also found in skeletal, cardiac muscle, brain and many other organs. LDH is also a general marker of tissue injury [
11].
Then we concluded that induction of renal IR in this study caused remote organ injury in the liver and probably in the other organs.
The pre-treatment with purslane significantly prevented the ALT, ALP and LDH increase in the simultaneously nephrectomized model. In the other model of experiment, purslane had such effect only on the serum ALP concentration that could be expectable because of the less enzymatic changes seen after 24 hours of reperfusion in that model.
The hepatoprotective activity of purslane was reported in some situations like ligation-induced hepatic fibrosis [
12], cisplatin-induced toxicity [
13], and carbon tetrachloride-induced hepatotoxicity [
14]. Purlane is well known for the potent antioxidant activity [
15]. As the oxidative stress and free radical formation have a key role in propagation of remote organ injury, the preventive effect of purslane in the liver injury after renal IR in the present study seems to be logical.
As the results showed, the consequence of the renal IR was apparently different in the two models of experiments. In the previously nephrectomized animals the effects of the induction of renal IR and administration of purslane on the most of the measured hepatic enzymes were not significant. Comparisons between two models showed notable differences. Then it seems that the judgment about benefit of the purslane treatment could affect by the method used for induction of the IR injury. In conclusion, purslane as an antioxidant ameliorated remote organ injury in the liver after renal IR and this effect was seen more clearly in the simultaneously nephrectomized model, which could be in part because of more injury occurred in that model.