| Literature DB >> 26788254 |
Tuba Esatbeyoglu1, Philipp Ewald2, Yoshiaki Yasui3, Haruka Yokokawa3, Anika E Wagner1, Seiichi Matsugo4, Peter Winterhalter2, Gerald Rimbach1.
Abstract
Dietary stilbenoids are receiving increasing attention due to their potential health benefits. However, most studies concerning the bioactivity of stilbenoids were conducted with pure compounds, for example, resveratrol. The aim of this study was to characterize a complex root extract of Vitis vinifera in terms of its free radical scavenging and cellular antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. HPLC-ESI-MS/MS analyses of the root extract of Vitis vinifera identified seven stilbenoids including two monomeric (resveratrol and piceatannol), two dimeric (trans-ɛ-viniferin and ampelopsin A), one trimeric (miyabenol C), and two tetrameric (r-2-viniferin = vitisin A and r-viniferin = vitisin B) compounds which may mediate its biological activity. Electron spin resonance and spin trapping experiments indicate that the root extract scavenged 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl, hydroxyl, galvinoxyl, and superoxide free radicals. On a cellular level it was observed that the root extract of Vitis vinifera protects against hydrogen peroxide-induced DNA damage and induces Nrf2 and its target genes heme oxygenase-1 and γ-glutamylcysteine synthetase. Furthermore, the root extract could induce the antiatherogenic hepatic enzyme paraoxonase 1 and downregulate proinflammatory gene expression (interleukin 1β, inducible nitric oxide synthase) in macrophages. Collectively our data suggest that the root extract of Vitis vinifera exhibits free radical scavenging as well as cellular antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26788254 PMCID: PMC4691607 DOI: 10.1155/2016/8591286
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Stilbenoids in cell suspension culture, berries, stems, leaves, roots, and wine of Vitis vinifera according to Pawlus et al. [5].
| Plant part | Stilbenoids |
|---|---|
| Cell suspension culture |
|
|
| |
| Berries |
|
|
| |
| Stems |
|
|
| |
| Leaves |
|
|
| |
| Roots |
|
|
| |
| Winea |
|
aNot distinguished between red wine and white wine.
Figure 1Chemical structures of monomeric and oligomeric stilbenoids of the root extract of Vitis vinifera.
Figure 2HPLC chromatogram of the root extract of Vitis vinifera at λ = 280 nm. For peak numbers, compare Table 2.
Quantification of monomeric stilbenoids in the root extract of Vitis vinifera as trans-resveratrol equivalents and oligostilbenoids as trans-ε-viniferin equivalents by HPLC-PDA at λ = 280 nm (n = 5).
| Peak | Compound | Retention time ( | Molecular ion [M−H]−
| Fragment ions | Content [g/kg] | SD [g/kg] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ampelopsin A | 16.2 | 469 | 451, 363 | 15.6 | 0.41 |
| 2 | Piceatannol | 22.3 | 243 | 225, 201, 181, 175, 159 | 4.20 | 0.34 |
| 3 | r-Viniferin | 25.5 | 905 | 887, 799, 705, 675, 545, 451, 359 | 11.1 | 0.35 |
| 4 | Resveratrol | 36.2 | 227 | 212, 185, 159, 141, 107 | 46.3 | 0.85 |
| 5 | r-2-Viniferin | 37.3 | 905 | 887, 811, 705, 675, 545, 451, 359 | 87.1 | 1.31 |
| 6 | Miyabenol C | 40.4 | 679 | 661, 637, 585, 479, 451, 345 | 12.7 | 1.30 |
| 7 |
| 42.8 | 453 | 435, 411, 359, 347 | 125.1 | 1.23 |
Figure 3The scavenging effect of the root extract of Vitis vinifera on DPPH (a), hydroxyl (b), galvinoxyl (c), and superoxide free radical (d) measured by electron spin resonance spectroscopy (ESR). ESR spectra were recorded three times. Data are means + SD.
Figure 4Effect of 50 µg/mL root extract of Vitis vinifera on H2O2-induced DNA damage in HT-29 cells after 14 h of incubation. Following treatment cells were stressed with 25 µM H2O2 for 15 min. Resveratrol (Resv., 50 µM) was used as a positive control. DNA damage was measured by the Comet assay. The photographs represent the comet tails (a) and the inhibition of DNA damage is shown as percentage of control damage (damage of control = 100%; (b)). Each bar represents the mean of three independent experiments + SD. ∗∗ indicates significant differences compared to untreated control cells; p < 0.01, Student's t-test.
Figure 5Effect of the root extract of Vitis vinifera on Nrf2 transactivation in transiently transfected Huh7 liver cells. Resveratrol (Resv., 25 µM) was used as positive control. Data are mean + SEM of at least three experiments performed in triplicate. ∗∗∗ indicates significant differences compared to control; p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test.
Figure 6(a) HO-1 mRNA levels in Huh7 liver cells following 6 h of incubation with the root extract of Vitis vinifera compared to untreated control cells. Resveratrol (Resv., 25 µM) was used as positive control. Data are means + SEM of at least three experiments. ∗ indicates significant differences compared to untreated control; p < 0.05, Student's t-test, and ∗∗∗ indicates significant differences compared to untreated control cells; p < 0.001. (b) Western blotting of HO-1 in Huh7 whole cell extracts following 24 h of incubation with the root extract of Vitis vinifera. Resveratrol (Resv., 25 µM) was used as positive control and GAPDH was used as loading control. One representative Western blot out of three is shown.
Figure 7γGCS mRNA levels in Huh7 liver cells following 6 h of incubation with the root extract of Vitis vinifera compared to untreated control cells. Resveratrol (Resv., 25 µM) was used as positive control. Data are means + SEM of at least three experiments. ∗ indicates significant differences compared to untreated control cells; p < 0.05, Student's t-test.
Figure 8Effects of the root extract of Vitis vinifera on PON1 transactivation in stably transfected PON1-Huh7 cells. Resveratrol (Resv., 25 µM) was used as positive control. Data are means + SEM of at least three independent experiments performed in triplicate. ∗∗∗ indicates significant differences compared to control; p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test.
Figure 9Effect of the root extract of Vitis vinifera on the inflammatory biomarkers IL-1β (a) and iNOS (b) in murine macrophages. RAW264.7 murine macrophages were incubated with the root extract of Vitis vinifera (20 µM) for 24 h and stimulated with 10 ng/mL lipopolysaccharide (LPS) for 4 h. mRNA levels of IL-1β and iNOS were examined with real-time PCR. Each bar represents the mean (SEM) of at least three independent experiments measured in duplicate. ∗∗ indicates significant differences compared to stimulated control; p < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U test (a) and Student's t-test (b).