Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a key regulator of glucose and lipid metabolism. Agonists of this nuclear receptor are used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and are also studied as a potential treatment of other metabolic diseases, including nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Silymarin, a concentrated phenolic mixture from milk thistle (Silybum marianum) seeds, is used widely as a supportive agent in the treatment of a variety of liver diseases. In this study, the PPARγ activation potential of silymarin and its main constituents was investigated. Isosilybin A (3) caused transactivation of a PPARγ-dependent luciferase reporter in a concentration-dependent manner. This effect could be reversed upon co-treatment with the PPARγ antagonist T0070907. In silico docking studies suggested a binding mode for 3 distinct from that of the inactive silymarin constituents, with one additional hydrogen bond to Ser342 in the entrance region of the ligand-binding domain of the receptor. Hence, isosilybin A (3) has been identified as the first flavonolignan PPARγ agonist, suggesting its further investigation as a modulator of this nuclear receptor.
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a key regulator of glucose and lipid metabolism. Agonists of this nuclear receptor are used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and are also studied as a potential treatment of other metabolic diseases, including nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Silymarin, a concentrated phenolic mixture from milk thistle (Silybum marianum) seeds, is used widely as a supportive agent in the treatment of a variety of liver diseases. In this study, the PPARγ activation potential of silymarin and its main constituents was investigated. Isosilybin A (3) caused transactivation of a PPARγ-dependent luciferase reporter in a concentration-dependent manner. This effect could be reversed upon co-treatment with the PPARγ antagonist T0070907. In silico docking studies suggested a binding mode for 3 distinct from that of the inactive silymarin constituents, with one additional hydrogen bond to Ser342 in the entrance region of the ligand-binding domain of the receptor. Hence, isosilybin A (3) has been identified as the first flavonolignanPPARγ agonist, suggesting its further investigation as a modulator of this nuclear receptor.
Peroxisome proliferator-activated
receptors (PPARs) are ligand-activated nuclear receptors orchestrating
the expression of genes relevant to lipid and glucose metabolism and
occur in three isoforms, alpha, beta, and gamma.[1−3] PPAR type gamma
(PPARγ) is most highly expressed in the adipose tissue, but
important functional expression of this receptor has been also allocated
to a variety of nonadipose tissues and cell types, such as skeletal
muscle, liver, pancreatic beta cells, myeloid dendritic cells, and
macrophages.[4] PPARγ is the molecular
target of thiazolidinediones (e.g., pioglitazone), used clinically
as insulin sensitizers to lower blood glucose levels in diabetes type
2 patients.[5,6] The
thiazolidinedione type of PPARγ ligands are agonists of the
receptor with a very high binding affinity. However, this ligand type
demonstrates a range of undesirable side effects,[7] prompting the search for new PPARγ agonists effective
in the context of lipid and glucose metabolism and inflammation. Interestingly,
recent studies indicate that partial agonists of PPARγ, inducing
submaximal receptor activation, exhibit very promising activity patterns
by retaining the positive effects attributed to the full agonists
but with reduced side effects.[8−10]In recent years, a close
interplay between type 2 diabetes and
nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has been discovered.[11] NAFLD is currently the most common cause of
liver disease in the Western world. NAFLD is commonly associated with
insulin resistance, obesity, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular
disease.[12] Therefore, NAFLD is thought
to represent the hepatic manifestation of the metabolic syndrome.
Given the epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes, the burden of NAFLD
is expected to continue rising in the near future.[12−14] There is a
growing body of evidence that PPARs play a role in the pathogenesis
of NAFLD and can therefore serve as targets for its therapy.[14−16] PPARs are key modulators of gene expression and hepatic triglyceride
accumulation, and PPARγ agonists have shown promising results
in clinical studies dealing with the treatment of NAFLD, although
more evidence for their efficacy from larger clinical studies is still
needed.[11,12,17]Natural
products represent an attractive pool for discovery of
novel bioactive compounds, since they encompass a high diversity of
structural motifs that, as a result of natural selection, are often
evolutionarily optimized to bind to diverse biomolecules and thereby
serve a variety of functions.[18] Several
classes of natural products originating from food or medicinal plants
have already been described as PPARγ ligands.[9,19−22] Silymarin is a phenolic mixture extracted from milk thistle [Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn., Asteraceae] seeds. The major
part (typically 70–80%) of silymarin consists of seven flavonolignans
(i.e., silybin A, silybin B, isosilybin A, isosilybin B, silychristin,
isosilychristin, and silydianin; 1–6) and the flavonoidtaxifolin (7).[23] Silybins A and B (1 and 2) and
isosilybins A and B (3 and 4) are two regioisomeric
pairs of diastereomers. Even though they were first described in the
1950s and the diastereomeric mixtures were isolated and structurally
characterized during the 1960s and 1970s,[24,25] the complete isolation and structural characterization of the four
isomers was only achieved in 2003.[26,27] Milk thistle
fruits and seeds have been used for more than 2000 years to treat
liver and biliary disorders, and milk thistle seed extracts are still
used in the treatment of some ailments, for example as supportive
agents in hepatitis and cirrhosis therapy.[28] Although more evidence is needed to validate their clinical efficacy
in liver disorders,[29−31] milk thistle seed preparations are among the best-selling
herbal products. In the U.S., in 2012, milk thistle seed preparations
ranked sixth of all botanical dietary supplements sold in food, drug,
and mass market outlets, reaching about $21 million USD in retail
sales, a 7.5% increase over 2011.[32] Silymarin
and its components display diverse biological activities in vitro
and in vivo, including antioxidant, membrane-stabilizing, anticholestatic,
antifibrotic, antiatherogenic, anti-inflammatory, anticarcinogenic,
and antiviral activity (against hepatitis C).[23,28,33−35] These biological activities
are supposed to be the basis for the therapeutic potential of silymarin
in liver diseases caused by oxidative stress, such as alcoholic and
nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (steatohepatitis) and drug- and chemical-induced
toxicity, in viral-induced chronic hepatitis, and in primary liver
cancer.[31]Considering the relevant
hepatotherapeutic traditional use of silymarin,
as well as the existing interest in identification of novel PPARγ
ligands, in this study it was aimed to investigate whether silymarin
and its purified flavonolignan and flavonoid constituents are able
to activate PPARγ.
Results and Discussion
Since PPARγ
is a key player in several pathways related to
glucose and lipid metabolism, this nuclear receptor constitutes an
important target for drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes
and other diseases related to metabolic syndrome such as NAFLD. To
examine whether silymarin, used traditionally for the treatment of
liver disorders, has any PPARγ activation potential, it was
tested in a PPARγ-driven luciferase reporter gene assay. It
exhibited a small but statistically significant agonistic effect (19%
activation at 30 μg/mL, p < 0.05; not shown).
The main constituents in silymarin were quantified by HPLC analysis
and were found to be as follows: 12.7% silybin A (1),
21.7% silybin B (2), 4.5% isosilybin A (3), 3.1% isosilybin B (4), 16.1% silychristin (5), 7.1% silydianin (6), 2.6% taxifolin (7). These results are in good accordance with data published
for other commercially available milk thistle seed extracts.[35]When the seven main constituents of silymarin (1–7) were tested individually in this
assay, it turned out that,
despite the high structural similarity of some of the compounds, only
isosilybin A (3) was able to significantly activate PPARγ
at a concentration of 30 μM [2.08 ± 0.48-fold activation, p < 0.01], while the other tested constituents were inactive
(Figure 1). The fact that the active constituent 3 represents only 4.5% of the total extract is in accordance
with the rather weak activity observed for silymarin.
Figure 1
PPARγ activation
by silymarin constituents. HEK-293 cells
were co-transfected with a plasmid encoding full-length human PPARγ,
a PPAR luciferase reporter plasmid, and EGFP as internal control.
After reseeding, cells were treated as indicated for 18 h. Since the
positive control pioglitazone (5 μM) and the silymarin constituents
(30 μM) were reconstituted in DMSO, cells were treated with
an equal amount of the solvent vehicle DMSO (0.1%) as negative control.
The luciferase activity was normalized to the EGFP-derived fluorescence,
and the result is expressed as fold induction compared to the solvent
vehicle control. The data shown are means ± SD of three independent
experiments each performed in quadruplicate [**p <
0.01 (compared to the solvent vehicle group; n =
3, ANOVA/Bonferroni)].
PPARγ activation
by silymarin constituents. HEK-293 cells
were co-transfected with a plasmid encoding full-length humanPPARγ,
a PPAR luciferase reporter plasmid, and EGFP as internal control.
After reseeding, cells were treated as indicated for 18 h. Since the
positive control pioglitazone (5 μM) and the silymarin constituents
(30 μM) were reconstituted in DMSO, cells were treated with
an equal amount of the solvent vehicle DMSO (0.1%) as negative control.
The luciferase activity was normalized to the EGFP-derived fluorescence,
and the result is expressed as fold induction compared to the solvent
vehicle control. The data shown are means ± SD of three independent
experiments each performed in quadruplicate [**p <
0.01 (compared to the solvent vehicle group; n =
3, ANOVA/Bonferroni)].In order to explore why only 3, but not its
stereo-
and regioisomers, was able to activate PPARγ, docking studies
of all tested compounds within the receptor binding pocket of the
protein were performed (Figure 2). The PPARγ
ligand-binding domain (LBD) has been described previously to possess
a Y-shaped topology: The entrance bears several polar residues (e.g.,
Arg288, Glu291, Glu343, and Ser342). The two branches of the binding
pocket, i.e., arm I and arm II, are mainly composed of hydrophobic
residues, with the exception of some moderately polar residues in
arm I (e.g., Cys285, Ser289, His323, Tyr327, His449, and Tyr473).[36] In comparison to the inactive compounds, isosilybin
A (3) formed additional hydrogen bonds to Ser342 in the
entrance and to Tyr327 in arm I (Figure 2).
Due to the distinct configuration at position 7″ of 3, the 4″-hydroxy-3″-methoxyphenyl moiety is able to
form a hydrogen bond with Ser342 in the entrance region. A hydrophobic
moiety and an acceptor site with an appropriate conformation to establish
a hydrogen bond with Ser342 or an equivalent residue in this part
of the PPARγ LBD are regarded as essential structural features
for partial PPARγ agonists that possess high binding affinity
but low transactivation activity in order to come into consideration
as antidiabetic drugs.[37] These modeling
results provide a plausible explanation for the fact that PPARγ
activation was observed only for isosilybin A (3), but
not for its stereo- and regioisomers.
Figure 2
Predicted binding mode of isosilybin A
(3), shown
in (A) 3D depiction and (B) 2D depiction. Chemical features are color-coded:
red/green arrow, hydrogen-bond acceptor/donor; yellow sphere, hydrophobic
interaction; surface colored by aggregated lipophilicity (blue)/hydrophobicity
(gray). The favorable interactions with the water molecule HOH35 and
Ser342, which are not observed in the docking poses for inactive compounds,
are suggested to be responsible for the PPARγ partial activation
of isosilybin A (3).
Predicted binding mode of isosilybin A
(3), shown
in (A) 3D depiction and (B) 2D depiction. Chemical features are color-coded:
red/green arrow, hydrogen-bond acceptor/donor; yellow sphere, hydrophobic
interaction; surface colored by aggregated lipophilicity (blue)/hydrophobicity
(gray). The favorable interactions with the water molecule HOH35 and
Ser342, which are not observed in the docking poses for inactive compounds,
are suggested to be responsible for the PPARγ partial activation
of isosilybin A (3).Isosilybin A (3) activated the receptor to a
smaller
extent than pioglitazone, a clinically used PPARγ agonist, even
at the highest concentration tested (Figure 3). As can be seen in Figure 4A, the PPARγ
activating effect by 3 (30 μM) and pioglitazone
(5 μM) were inhibited (p < 0.001) when the
PPARγ antagonist T0070907 was added in co-treatment experiments,
confirming the PPARγ dependence of the measured effects. It
is known that partial receptor agonists often are able to suppress
the effects of full agonists upon co-treatment due to competition
for receptor binding. To investigate whether 3 is able
to reduce the effect of the full PPARγ agonist pioglitazone,
the concentration-dependent effect of pioglitazone was tested in the
presence or absence of 3 (Figure 4B). Indeed, the pioglitazone-mediated PPARγ activation was
clearly reduced in the presence of compound 3.
Figure 3
Concentration-dependent
PPARγ activition by isosilybin A
(3) and pioglitazone. HEK-293 cells, transiently transfected
with a human PPARγ expression plasmid, a luciferase reporter
plasmid (tk-PPREx3-luc), and EGFP as internal control, were treated
with different concentrations of pioglitazone or isosilybin A (3) for 18 h. Luciferase activity was normalized by the EGFP-derived
fluorescence, and the result is expressed as fold induction compared
to the solvent vehicle control (0.1% DMSO). The data points shown
are means ± SD of three independent experiments each performed
in quadruplicate.
Figure 4
PPARγ-dependence
and co-treatment experiments. (A) HEK-293
cells, transiently transfected with a human PPARγ expression
plasmid, a luciferase reporter plasmid (tk-PPREx3-luc), and EGFP as
internal control, were treated for 18 h with pioglitazone (5 μM),
T0070907 (1 μ M), isosilybin A (3; 30 μM),
or combinations as indicated on the x-axis. Luciferase
activity was normalized by the EGFP-derived fluorescence, and the
results are expressed as fold induction compared to the solvent vehicle
control (DMSO, 0.1%). The data points shown are means ± SD of
three independent experiments each performed in quadruplicate [**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (n = 3, ANOVA/Bonferroni)]. (B) Cells were transfected as indicated
above. Pioglitazone was applied in different concentrations in the
presence and absence of 30 μM isosilybin A (3).
The data shown are means ± SD of three independent experiments
each performed in quadruplicate.
Concentration-dependent
PPARγ activition by isosilybin A
(3) and pioglitazone. HEK-293 cells, transiently transfected
with a humanPPARγ expression plasmid, a luciferase reporter
plasmid (tk-PPREx3-luc), and EGFP as internal control, were treated
with different concentrations of pioglitazone or isosilybin A (3) for 18 h. Luciferase activity was normalized by the EGFP-derived
fluorescence, and the result is expressed as fold induction compared
to the solvent vehicle control (0.1% DMSO). The data points shown
are means ± SD of three independent experiments each performed
in quadruplicate.PPARγ-dependence
and co-treatment experiments. (A) HEK-293
cells, transiently transfected with a humanPPARγ expression
plasmid, a luciferase reporter plasmid (tk-PPREx3-luc), and EGFP as
internal control, were treated for 18 h with pioglitazone (5 μM),
T0070907 (1 μ M), isosilybin A (3; 30 μM),
or combinations as indicated on the x-axis. Luciferase
activity was normalized by the EGFP-derived fluorescence, and the
results are expressed as fold induction compared to the solvent vehicle
control (DMSO, 0.1%). The data points shown are means ± SD of
three independent experiments each performed in quadruplicate [**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (n = 3, ANOVA/Bonferroni)]. (B) Cells were transfected as indicated
above. Pioglitazone was applied in different concentrations in the
presence and absence of 30 μM isosilybin A (3).
The data shown are means ± SD of three independent experiments
each performed in quadruplicate.So far, the positive effects observed for silymarin in clinical
studies associated with diabetes and NAFLD have mainly been ascribed
to its antioxidant and hepatoprotective activity, but PPARγ
activation has not been studied before to the best of our knowledge.[38−41] When analyzing the silymarin preparation tested by HPLC, it was
found that 3 was present in the mixture at a concentration
of only 4.5%. Considering that isosilybin A (3) constitutes
such a minor fraction of silymarin and that the agonistic properties
of this compound seem to be weaker in comparison to pioglitazone (Figure 3), PPARγ activation induced by 3 might not be relevant clinically for the therapeutic use of silymarin.
Nevertheless, a contribution of PPARγ activation by 3 to the in vivo action of silymarin cannot be completely ruled out,
since several partial agonists activating PPARγ with a weak
efficiency in vitro were already demonstrated to display an array
of beneficial PPARγ-dependent effects when examined in vivo.[8,10,22] Since clinically used PPARγ
full agonists of the thiazolidinedione type have a number of undesirable
side effects,[7] the identification of novel
PPARγ activators, including partial agonists, is highly relevant.[8−10] While some flavonoids were already reported to activate PPARγ,[42,43] this is the first report demonstrating PPARγ activation by
a flavonolignan-type compound.In summary, it is reported for
the first time that the flavonolignanisosilybin A (3) from the milk thistle seed extract silymarin
acts as a partial PPARγ agonist. Being a new-scaffold PPARγ
activator, 3 might serve as a lead for future development
of new PPARγ agonists. The question as to whether PPARγ
activation by 3 might be clinically relevant for the
use of silymarin as an herbal remedy cannot be conclusively answered
yet and deserves further investigation.
Experimental
Section
Chemicals, Cell Culture Reagents, and Plasmids
Dulbecco’s
modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM), containing 4.5 g/L glucose,
and l-glutamine were purchased from Lonza (Basel, Switzerland).
Fetal bovine serum (FBS) was from Gibco (Lofer, Austria). Silymarin
was purchased from Sigma (SO-292-10g). Taxifolin (7)
was purchased from Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany (5797.2). Compounds 1, 2, 3, and 4 were
isolated and structurally identified as described previously.[44] Silydianin (6) was isolated and
structurally identified as described.[45] The isolation of silychristin (5) is described below.
The PPARγ antagonist T0070907 was purchased from Cayman (Ann
Arbor, MI, USA), and pioglitazone was from Molekula Ltd. (Shaftesbury,
UK). Solvents used for HPLC analyses were of gradient grade. The investigated
compounds or dried extracts were dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO),
aliquoted, and stored at −20 °C for further use. The final
concentration of the solvent vehicle DMSO was 0.1% or lower in all
performed experiments. The expression plasmid with humanPPARγ
(pSG5-PL-hPPAR-gamma1)[46] was provided by
Prof. Beatrice Desvergne and Prof. Walter Wahli (Center for Integrative
Genomics, University of Lausanne, Switzerland), and the luciferase
reporter plasmid (tk-PPREx3-luc)[47] was
kindly supplied by Prof. Ronald M. Evans (Salk Institute for Biological
Studies, San Diego, CA, USA). All other chemicals were obtained from
Sigma–Aldrich (Vienna, Austria).
Isolation of Silychristin
(5)
Isolation
was accomplished by preparative HPLC separation of silymarin on a
Varian Prep Star SD-1 solvent delivery system equipped with a Dynamax
UV-1 absorbance detector, which was set to 280 nm. A 100 mg aliquot
of silymarin was dissolved in 0.5 mL of DMSO and 2 mL of methanol
and sonicated, and the solution was centrifuged. An Ultra SEP ES RP-18
column (250 × 20 mm, 10 μm) was used as a stationary phase,
and a gradient of methanol in water (0–40 min: methanol–water
30:70–55:45; 40–50 min 55:45–100:0) was used
as mobile phase (flow rate: 6 mL/min). The peak of 5 (tR 38 min) was collected, and the solvent was
evaporated. A yellowish powder (12 mg) was obtained. Its structure
was confirmed by NMR spectroscopy in DMSO-d6 on a Varian Unity Inova (600 MHz) spectrometer at 25 °C using
the parameters described by Seebacher et al.[48] NMR data were found to be in accordance with those values published
for 5 by Kim et al.[49]
HPLC Quantification
of Silymarin Constituents
HPLC
measurements were performed on an Agilent 1260 HPLC-DAD instrument.
As a stationary phase, a Zorbax SB-C18 column (2.1 ×
150 mm, 3.5 μm) protected by a Zorbax SB-C8 guard column (2.1
× 12.5 mm, 5 μm) (both Agilent Technologies) was used.
The mobile phase consisted of water + 0.1% HCOOH (solvent A) and methanol
+ 0.1% HCOOH (solvent B). The following gradient was used: 0–30
min A:B 70:30–45:55; 30–40 min A:B 45:55–20:80;
40–45 min A:B 20:80–0:100; 45–46 min A:B 0:100–70:30;
46–55 min A:B 70:30. The flow rate was 230 μL/min, the
column temperature was 20 °C, and a detector wavelength of 280
nm was used for quantification.Silymarin was dissolved in methanol
(2.5 mg/mL). For HPLC analysis, 5 μL was injected. For the preparation
of calibration curves, reference compounds were dissolved in methanol
(1 mg/mL) and serially diluted (0.002 to 1 mg/mL; five concentrations
for each compound). From each concentration, 5 μL was injected
for HPLC analysis. The purity of the reference compounds used was
in the range 93.4–95.8%. All calibration curves showed good
linearity (R2 > 0.994).
PPARγ
Luciferase Reporter Transactivation
HEK-293
cells (ATCC, Rockville, MD, USA) were maintained in 75 cm2 flasks at 37 °C and 5% CO2, in DMEM with phenol
red, with 100 U/mL benzylpenicillin, 100 μg/mL streptomycin,
10% FBS, and 2 mM l-glutamine. The assay was performed as
described previously.[9,20] Briefly, cells were seeded in
10 cm dishes and transiently transfected by the calcium phosphate
precipitation method[50] with 4 μg
of the reporter plasmid (tk-PPREx3-luc), 4 μg of the PPARγ
expression plasmid (pSG5-PL-hPPAR-gamma1), and 2 μg of green
fluorescent protein plasmid (pEGFP-N1, Clontech, Mountain View, CA,
USA) as internal control. Transfected cells were reseeded in 96-well
plates, treated with the indicated compounds or the solvent vehicle
(0.1% DMSO), and incubated for 18 h. The cells were then lysed with
a reporter lysis buffer (E3971, Promega, Madison, WI, USA). Luciferase
activity was evaluated using a GeniosPro plate reader (Tecan, Grödig,
Austria), and EGFP-derived fluorescence was used for normalization,
to account for differences in the transfection efficiency or cell
number.
Docking Study
In order to surmise the binding mode
of the main silymarin constituents, a docking study was performed.
Basically, in this docking study the quantum mechanics-polarized ligand
docking (QPLD) workflow,[51] available within
the Maestro suite version 9.2.112 (Schrödinger, LLC, New York,
NY, 2011, http://schrodinger.com), was employed. Briefly,
the ligand and protein preparation as well as the protein–ligand
docking were performed in a comparable manner to a previous investigation,
which was conducted to propose the binding modes of polyacetylene-type
partial PPARγ agonists from natural sources.[20] For the docking, the X-ray crystal structure of the LBD
of PPARγ in complex with two copies of magnolol, a natural product
PPARγ partial agonist, was used (Protein Data Bank[52] entry: 3r5n[53]). The
docking poses were postprocessed by (i) the insertion of the water
molecule HOH35 into the LBD (which to our best knowledge occasionally
has a critical role by mediating interactions from this nuclear receptor
to ligands, especially when partial agonists are involved) and (ii)
the MMFF94-based minimization within LigandScout 3.1 (Inte:Ligand,
GmbH, Maria Enzersdorf, Austria, 2012, http://www.inteligand.com), which was also used for visualization purposes.
Statistical
Methods and Data Analysis
All statistical
analyses were done with the GraphPad Prism software version 4.03.
At least three independent experiments were performed, and one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a Bonferroni post hoc test was used
to determine statistical significance. Data with p < 0.05 were considered as significantly different.
Authors: H M Berman; J Westbrook; Z Feng; G Gilliland; T N Bhat; H Weissig; I N Shindyalov; P E Bourne Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2000-01-01 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Paula R Davis-Searles; Yuka Nakanishi; Nam-Cheol Kim; Tyler N Graf; Nicholas H Oberlies; Mansukh C Wani; Monroe E Wall; Rajesh Agarwal; David J Kroll Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: H Fallah Huseini; B Larijani; R Heshmat; H Fakhrzadeh; B Radjabipour; T Toliat; Mohsin Raza Journal: Phytother Res Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 5.878
Authors: Maryam Ahmadian; Jae Myoung Suh; Nasun Hah; Christopher Liddle; Annette R Atkins; Michael Downes; Ronald M Evans Journal: Nat Med Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Atanas G Atanasov; Jian N Wang; Shi P Gu; Jing Bu; Matthias P Kramer; Lisa Baumgartner; Nanang Fakhrudin; Angela Ladurner; Clemens Malainer; Anna Vuorinen; Stefan M Noha; Stefan Schwaiger; Judith M Rollinger; Daniela Schuster; Hermann Stuppner; Verena M Dirsch; Elke H Heiss Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Date: 2013-06-27
Authors: Limei Wang; Susanne Rotter; Angela Ladurner; Elke H Heiss; Nicholas H Oberlies; Verena M Dirsch; Atanas G Atanasov Journal: Molecules Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 4.411
Authors: Ekaterina Kozuharova; Adam Matkowski; Dorota Woźniak; Rumiana Simeonova; Zheko Naychov; Clemens Malainer; Andrei Mocan; Seyed M Nabavi; Atanas G Atanasov Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Limei Wang; Birgit Waltenberger; Eva-Maria Pferschy-Wenzig; Martina Blunder; Xin Liu; Clemens Malainer; Tina Blazevic; Stefan Schwaiger; Judith M Rollinger; Elke H Heiss; Daniela Schuster; Brigitte Kopp; Rudolf Bauer; Hermann Stuppner; Verena M Dirsch; Atanas G Atanasov Journal: Biochem Pharmacol Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 5.858
Authors: Birgit Waltenberger; Atanas G Atanasov; Elke H Heiss; David Bernhard; Judith M Rollinger; Johannes M Breuss; Daniela Schuster; Rudolf Bauer; Brigitte Kopp; Chlodwig Franz; Valery Bochkov; Marko D Mihovilovic; Verena M Dirsch; Hermann Stuppner Journal: Monatsh Chem Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 1.451