| Literature DB >> 25298860 |
Izabela Burzynska-Pedziwiatr1, Malgorzata Bukowiecka-Matusiak1, Marzena Wojcik1, Waldemar Machala2, Malgorzata Bienkiewicz3, Grzegorz Spolnik4, Witold Danikiewicz4, Lucyna Alicja Wozniak1.
Abstract
Although a growing body of evidence suggests that plant polyphenols can modulate human immune responses, their simultaneous action on monocyte and neutrophil oxidative burst is currently poorly understood. Based on the hypothesis that various polyphenols contained in plant extracts might affect the oxidative burst of phagocytes, we evaluated the effects of ethanolic O. paradoxa extract polyphenols on monocyte and neutrophil oxidative burst in vitro activated by different stimuli, including opsonized bacteria E. coli, phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA), and formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine (fMLP). Samples were analyzed by the dihydrorhodamine flow cytometry assay. Our results showed that the extract repressed significantly and dose-dependently reactive oxygen species production in both cell types stimulated with E. coli and PMA (P < 0.05) and its inhibitory efficiency was stimulus- and cell-type-dependent. Interestingly, there was significant stimulatory effect of the extract on bursting phagocytes induced by fMLP (P < 0.05). Additionally, several flavonoids and phenolic compounds as well as penta-galloyl-β-(D)-glucose (PGG), the representative of hydrolyzable tannins, were identified in the 60% extract by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled to electrospray ionization in negative ion mode. In summary, the ethanolic O. paradoxa extract, rich in flavonoids and phenolic compounds, exhibits dual stimulus-dependent effect on the respiratory burst in human leukocytes; hence, it might affect immune responses in humans.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25298860 PMCID: PMC4178919 DOI: 10.1155/2014/764367
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
The effect of ethanolic O. paradoxa extract on respiratory burst in monocytes and neutrophils stimulated with E. coli, PMA, or fMLP.
| Median (range) |
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control#
| Group A | Group B | Control versus A | Control versus B | A versus B | |
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| MROS [%] | 26.05 (5.30–68.30) | 5.05 (0.20–26.50) | 2.10 (0.40–8.30) | <0.001∗∗∗ | <0.001∗∗∗ | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| MFI | 426 (304–693) | 427.5 (250–669) | 361 (233–644) | 0.285 | 0.023∗ | 0.036∗ |
| PMA | ||||||
| MROS [%] | 21.65 (2.80–85.00) | 10.00 (0.40–47.10) | 7.65 (0.20–14.70) | <0.001∗∗∗ | <0.001∗∗∗ | <0.01∗∗ |
| MFI | 538.00 (339–893) | 568.75 (347–879) | 484.50 (230–952) | 0.712 | 0.068 | 0.107 |
| fMLP | ||||||
| MROS [%] | 0.3 (0.1–2.1) | 0.4 (0.1–2.7) | 0.6 (0.1–8.2) | <0.01∗∗ | <0.001∗∗∗ | 0.028∗ |
| MFI | 307 (241–515) | 318 (234–664) | 326 (233–415) | 0.061 | 0.912 | 0.049∗ |
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| NROS [%] | 87.55 (49.90–99.31) | 61.50 (28.70–96.29) | 52.10 (17.53–91.08) | <0.001∗∗∗ | <0.001∗∗∗ | <0.01∗∗ |
| MFI | 894 (504–1600) | 619 (397–1169) | 550 (377–1098) | <0.001∗∗∗ | <0.001∗∗∗ | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| PMA | ||||||
| NROS [%] | 91.20 (46.8–99.70) | 83.25 (55.8–99.30) | 84.25 (47.7–98.60) | 0.018∗ | 0.035∗ | 0.880 |
| MFI | 1178 (645–2995) | 1232 (574–2594) | 1233 (442–2699) | 0.451 | 0.371 | 0.285 |
| fMLP | ||||||
| NROS [%] | 3 (0.2–11.50) | 3.25 (0.10–14.85) | 3.95 (0.2–19.80) | 0.276 | 0.014∗ | 0.017∗ |
| MFI | 328 (274–609) | 330 (276–464) | 340 (266–508) | 0.118 | 0.545 | 0.314 |
#Control (blood + PMA or E. coli or fMLP alone).
MROS [%] and NROS [%]: percentage of monocytes and neutrophils producing ROS, respectively; MFI: mean fluorescence intensity; fMLP: N-formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine; PMA: phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate.
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001 as assessed by Wilcoxon's test.
Figure 1Boxplots of the percentage of neutrophils (a) and monocytes (b) producing ROS (NROS [%] and MROS [%], resp.) and a mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) of these cells ((c) and (d)) stimulated with PMA or E. coli after their exposition to the extract (0.1 and 0.25 mg/mL) versus control (without the extract) for PMA and E. coli stimuli. Middle point: median; box: interquartile range; whisker: range (excluding outliers). Significance levels *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001 assessed by Wilcoxon's test are indicated by asterisks.
Figure 2Representative histograms of the fluorescent intensities of E. coli-stimulated monocytes and granulocytes after in vitro exposure to 0.25 mg/mL extract versus the controls (without the extract). P1-monocytes, P2-granulocytes.
Antioxidant enzyme activities after treatment with the extract.
| Enzyme | Control |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [0.1 mg/mL] | [0.25 mg/mL] | |||
| CAT [U/mg of protein] | 74.98 ± 17.93 | 75.27 ± 16.96 | 76.87 ± 18.76 | ns |
| GPx [U/mg of protein] | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 0.16 ± 0.25 | 0.17 ± 0.06 | ns |
| SOD [% of inhibition] | 32.40 ± 9.41 | 33.15 ± 8.10 | 35.80 ± 9.07 | ns |
Values represented as mean ± SD of three independent experiments.
CAT: catalase; GPx: glutathione peroxidase; SOD: superoxide dismutase.
ns: not significant as assessed by Wilcoxon's test.
Figure 3Mass spectra for catechin, m/z 289.07 (a), epicatechin gallate, m/z 441.08 (b), and PGG, m/z 939.11 (c) obtained with negative ion electrospray ionisation.
Characteristics of the extract polyphenolics identified by HPLC-MS analysis.
|
|