| Literature DB >> 26518905 |
Ehsan Oskoueian1,2, Norhani Abdullah3,4, Idrus Zulkifli5, Mahdi Ebrahimi6, Ehsan Karimi7,8, Yong Meng Goh9,10, Armin Oskoueian11,12, Majid Shakeri13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Palm kernel cake (PKC), a by-product of the palm oil industry is abundantly available in many tropical and subtropical countries. The product is known to contain high levels of phenolic compounds that may impede the deleterious effects of fungal mycotoxins. This study focused on the evaluation of PKC phenolics as a potential cytoprotective agent towards aflatoxin B1 (AFB1)-induced cell damage.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26518905 PMCID: PMC4628249 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-015-0921-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
The primer characteristics used for the gene expression analysis
| Genes | Sequences (5′ to 3′) | References | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NF-kB | F | gaaggaatcgtaccgggaaca | [ |
| R | ctcagagggccttgtgacagtaa | ||
| iNOS | F | gaacagccagctcatccgata | [ |
| R | cccaagctcaatgcacaactt | ||
| TNF-α | F | tgtgtatgtgcagcaacccgtagt | [ |
| R | ggcattgcaatttggacagaagt | ||
| IL1ß | F | tgggcatcaagggctaca | [ |
| R | tcgggttggttggtgatg | ||
| IL6 | F | caaggtgacggaggaggac | [ |
| R | tggcgaggagggatttct | ||
| Bax | F | tcctcatcgccatgctcat | [ |
| R | ccttggtctggaagcagaaga | ||
| Bcl2 | F | gatgaccgagtacctgaacc | [ |
| R | caggagaaatcgaacaaaggc | ||
| GAPDH | F | gtcagcaatgcatcgtgca | [ |
| R | ggcatggacagtggtcataaga | ||
| β-Actin | F | acacggtattgtcaccaact | [ |
| R | taacaccatcaccagagtcc |
The extraction yield and total phenolic content of phenolic-enriched fraction (PEF)
| Items | PEF |
|---|---|
| Extraction yield (g/100 g DM a) | 9.0 ± 0.86 |
| Total phenolic content b (mg/g DM) | 658.3 ± 26.32 |
All data are presented as means (± S.E.M) of at least three replicates (n = 3)
S.E.M Standard error of the means
aDM: Dry matter
bmg gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/g dry matter PEF
Fig. 1The HPLC chromatogram of phenolic acids present in phenolic-enriched fraction (PEF) obtained from PKC detected at 280 nm
The types of phenolic acids detected in phenolic-enriched fraction (PEF)
| Phenolic compounds (mg/g dried PEF) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gallic acid | 12.7 ± 0.12 | Syringic acid | 6.9 ± 0.11 |
| Pyrogallol | 10.0 ± 0.09 | Epicatechin | 7.7 ± 0.07 |
| Vanillic acid | 7.6 ± 0.14 | Catechin | 11.5 ± 0.10 |
| Caffeic acid | 8.1 ± 0.08 | Ferulic acid | 13.2 ± 0.08 |
All data are presented as means (± S.E.M) of at least three replicates (n = 3)
S.E.M Standard error of the means
The IC50 values indicating antioxidant activity of phenolic-enriched fraction (PEF) and positive control (gallic acid)
| IC50 (μg/ml) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH scavenging activity | Reducing power activity | ß-carotene bleaching inhibition | TBARS inhibition | |
| PEF | 24.6a | 31.2a | 37.1a | 42.9a |
| Gallic acid | 4.6b | 7.4b | 11.6b | 14.5b |
| S.E.M | 0.82 | 0.79 | 1.27 | 1.12 |
All data are presented as means (± SEM) of at least three replicates (n = 3)
Means (n = 3) with different superscripts (a,b) within a column are significantly different (p < 0.05)
S.E.M Standard error of the means
Fig. 2The cytoprotective activity of PEF and gallic acid against AFB1-cell damage. All values are means ± S.E.M of three independent experiments. The cells were pre-treated with different concentrations of PEF and gallic acid as positive control (10 μM or 1.7 μg/ml) for 24 h and then the media were replaced with a medium containing 5 μM of AFB1 and the cells were incubated for another 48 h. The experiment was performed in triplicate. ***p < 0.001 and **p < 0.01 indicated significant difference compared to the untreated control (0)
The total protein, lipid peroxidation and antioxidant enzyme activity of chicken hepatocytes pretreated with phenolic-enriched fraction (PEF) and exposed to AFB1
| Items | AFB1 (5 μM) | S.E.M | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEF (μg/ml) | Control+ | ||||||
| 0 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 40 | |||
| Total protein (mg ml−1) | 0.6b | 0.6b | 0.6b | 0.8a | 0.8a | 0.8a | 0.02 |
| Lipid peroxidation (nM MDA mg−1 protein) | 7.5a | 6.9ab | 5.6c | 4.3d | 3. 8de | 4.6d | 0.46 |
| SOD activity (U mg−1 protein) | 4.2d | 4.8cd | 5.7bc | 6.3b | 7.8a | 6.7ab | 0.8 |
| CAT activity (U mg−1 protein) | 3.8de | 4.2d | 4.9bcd | 5.7b | 6.9a | 5.5bc | 0.47 |
| GR activity (U mg−1 protein) | 0.2c | 0.2c | 0.4b | 0.5a | 0.5a | 0.5a | 0.06 |
All cells were pre-treated with different concentrations of PEF for 24 h, then the media were replaced with a medium containing 5 μM of AFB1 and the cells were incubated for another 48 h
MDA Malondialdehyde as lipid peroxidation biomarker
Control+: 10 μM or 1.7 μg/ml gallic acid
SOD Superoxide dismutase
CAT Catalase
GR Glutathione reductase
S.E.M Standard error of the means
Means (n = 3) with different superscripts (a,b,c,d,e) within a row are significantly different (p < 0.05)
The changes in the expression of different genes in chicken hepatocytes pretreated with phenolic-enriched fraction (PEF) and exposed to AFB1
| Gene expression (Fold changes) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Items | PEF concentration (μg/ml) | Control+ | S.E.M | ||||
| 0 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 40 | |||
| Up-regulated genes | |||||||
| Bcl2 | 1.0d | +2.1cd | +3.2c | +4.3b | +5.9a | +5.6a | 0.39 |
| Down-regulated genes | |||||||
| NF-kB | 1.0d | −1.5d | −2.6c | −3.6b | −4.4a | −4.6a | 0.36 |
| TNF-α | 1.0d | −1.2cd | −2.1c | −3.7b | −5.1a | −4.9a | 0.41 |
| IL1ß | 1.0d | −1.1d | −1.6c | −2.2b | −2.9a | −3.2a | 0.18 |
| IL6 | 1.0d | −1.3cd | −1.7c | −2.4b | −3.5a | −3.4a | 0.21 |
| iNOS | 1.0d | −1.7cd | −2.4bc | −3.3b | −4.8a | −4.4a | 0.43 |
| Bax | 1.0d | −1.8cd | −2.7c | −4.2b | −5.7a | −5.2a | 0.47 |
The cells were pre-treated for 24 h with different concentrations of PEF ranging from 0 to 40 μg/ml and positive control (10 μM or 1.7 μg/ml gallic acid). The media were replaced with a medium containing 5 μM of AFB1 and the cells were incubated for another 48 h
The expression of each gene was normalised to the GAPDH and ß-actin expressions as housekeeping genes and then the result normalised to the expression of that gene in the negative control (PEF 0 μg/ml)
S.E.M Standard error of the means
Means (n = 3) with different superscripts (a,b,c,d) within a row are significantly different (p < 0.05)
Fig. 3Expression of Hsp70 protein in chicken hepatocytes. The cells were pre-treated for 24 h with different concentrations of PEF ranging from 0 to 40 μg/ml and positive control (gallic acid, 10 μM or 1.7 μg/ml). The media were replaced with a medium containing 5 μM of AFB1 and the cells were incubated for another 48 h. All values represent means ± SEM from three independent experiments. *** p < 0.001 and ** p < 0.01 indicate significant difference compared to the untreated control (0)
Fig. 4Expression of nrf2 protein in chicken hepatocytes. The cells were pre-treated for 24 h with different concentrations of PEF ranging from 0 to 40 μg/ml and positive control (gallic acid, 10 μM or 1.7 μg/ml). The media were replaced with a medium containing 5 μM of AFB1 and the cells were incubated for another 48 h. All values represent means ± SEM from three independent experiments. *** p < 0.001 and ** p < 0.01 indicate significant difference compared to the untreated control (0)
Fig. 5Expression of caspase-3 protein in chicken hepatocytes. The cells were pre-treated for 24 h with different concentrations of PEF ranging from 0 to 40 μg/ml and positive control (gallic acid, 10 μM or 1.7 μg/ml). The media were replaced with a medium containing 5 μM of AFB1 and the cells incubated for another 48 h. All values represent mean ± standard error from three independent experiments. *** p < 0.001 and ** p < 0.01 indicate significant difference compared to the untreated control
Fig. 6Flow cytometry analyses of chicken hepatocytes pretreated with phenolic-enriched fraction (PEF) and exposed to 5 μM of AFB1. The a, b, c, d and e showed cells pretreated with 0, 5, 10, 20 and 40 μg/ml of PEF, respectively. The f indicated that the cells were pretreated with gallic acid at the concentration of 10 μM or 1.7 μg/ml
Percentage of viable, apoptotic and dead cells analysed by flow cytometry
| Cells (%) | PEF (μg/ml) | Control+ | S.E.M | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 40 | |||
| Viable | 15.2d | 16.2d | 27.3c | 36.1b | 46.2a | 40.2ab | 3.2 |
| Apoptotic | 52.8a | 54.1a | 48.4b | 43.4bc | 37.1d | 41.1cd | 2.4 |
| Dead | 32.1a | 29.8a | 24.3b | 20.7bc | 16.9d | 18.8cd | 2.1 |
The cells were pre-treated with different concentrations of PEF for 24 h, then the media were replaced with a medium containing 5 μM of AFB1 and the cells were incubated for another 48 h
A minimum of 15,000 cells per sample was analysed by flow cytometry
Control+: 10 μM or 1.7 μg/ml gallic acid
Means with different superscripts (a,b,c,d) within a row are significantly different (p < 0.05)
PEF Phenolic-enriched fraction
S.E.M Standard error of the means
Fig. 7This diagram illustrates the events taking place in un-treated chicken hepatocytes exposed to AFB1
Fig. 8This diagram illustrates the probable protective mechanisms of PEF in chicken hepatocytes exposed to AFB1