| Literature DB >> 27532123 |
Min Liu1,2, Huijuan Jing2, Jianjun Zhang2, Gen Che3, Meng Zhou4, Zheng Gao2, Shangshang Li2, Zhenzhen Ren2, Long Hao2, Yu Liu1, Le Jia2.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to optimize the purification of mycelia selenium polysaccharides (MSPS) from Agrocybe cylindracea SL-02 and characterize their in vitro antioxidant and in vivo anti-ageing activities. The Box-Behnken experimental design (BBD) was evaluated, which showed that the optimum conditions included an extraction temperature of 94.99°C, a pH of 9 and a precipitation temperature of 12°C, and the predicted yield was 11.036 ± 0.31%. The in vitro antioxidant assay demonstrated that MSPS had potential effects on scavenging and enhanced the reducing power of reactive oxygen species. The in vivo anti-ageing evaluation showed that MSPS significantly reduced the malonaldehyde (MDA) contents and total cholesterol (CHOL) levels, and remarkably improved the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), and total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) in mice in response to D-galactose-induced ageing. Furthermore, the characteristic analysis of MSPS indicated a selenium content of 1.76 ± 0.10 mg/g at a concentration of 6 μg/mL in liquid media and a monosaccharide composition of rhamnose, arabinose, mannose, glucose and galactose at a molar ratio of 29:3:1:18.8:2.7. These results suggest that MSPS might be suitable for functional foods and natural drugs on preventing the ageing progress induced by toxic chemicals.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27532123 PMCID: PMC4988633 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160799
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The biomass yield, selenium content and selenium accumulation rate of MSPS at different Na2SeO3 concentrations.
Experimental and predicted values of MSPS based on central composite.
| Run | X1
| X2
| X3
| MSPS yield (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Predicted | ||||
| 1 | -1 (5) | -1 (75) | 0 (8) | 6.10 ± 0.23 | 6.21 |
| 2 | 1 (9) | -1 | 0 | 7.35 ± 0.31 | 7.39 |
| 3 | -1 | 1 (95) | 0 | 8.60 ± 0.25 | 8.56 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 9.93 ± 0.32 | 9.82 |
| 5 | -1 | 0 (85) | -1 (4) | 8.39 ± 0.28 | 8.31 |
| 6 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 8.81 ± 0.26 | 8.80 |
| 7 | -1 | 0 | 1 (12) | 8.38 ± 0.33 | 8.39 |
| 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10.26 ± 0.35 | 10.34 |
| 9 | 0 (7) | -1 | -1 | 7.31 ± 0.28 | 7.28 |
| 10 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 9.71 ± 0.31 | 9.83 |
| 11 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 8.37 ± 0.35 | 8.25 |
| 12 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10.44 ± 0.34 | 10.48 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.98 ± 0.31 | 8.86 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.81 ± 0.28 | 8.86 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.89 ± 0.26 | 8.86 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.81 ± 0.24 | 8.86 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.81 ± 0.29 | 8.86 |
a: pH
b: Extraction temperature (°C)
c: Precipitation temperature (°C)
ANOVA for the evaluation of the quadratic model.
| Source | Coefficients | S.E. | Sum of squares | Mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | - | - | 18.92 | 2.1 | 157.69 | <0.0001 |
| Intercept | 8.86 | 0.052 | - | - | - | - |
| x1 | 0.61 | 0.041 | 2.98 | 2.98 | 223.58 | <0.0001 |
| x2 | 1.19 | 0.041 | 11.4 | 11.4 | 855.36 | <0.0001 |
| x3 | 0.4 | 0.041 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 97.69 | <0.0001 |
| x1x2 | 0.021 | 0.058 | 1.71E-03 | 1.71E-03 | 0.13 | 0.7306 |
| x1x3 | 0.36 | 0.058 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 39.79 | 0.0004 |
| x2x3 | -0.083 | 0.058 | 0.027 | 0.027 | 2.06 | 0.1948 |
| x12 | -0.43 | 0.056 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 59.41 | 0.0001 |
| x22 | -0.43 | 0.056 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 59.41 | 0.0001 |
| x32 | 0.53 | 0.056 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 90.29 | <0.0001 |
| Lack-of-fit | 0.072 | 0.024 | 4.19 | 0.1001 | ||
| Residual | 0.094 | 0.013 | ||||
| Pure error | 0.023 | |||||
| Cor total | 18.99 | |||||
| Mean | 8.7 | |||||
| c.v.% | 1.33 | |||||
| Adeq Precision | 47.837 | |||||
| R-squared | 0.995 | |||||
| Adj R-squared | 0.9886 | |||||
| Pred R-squared | 0.9378 |
Fig 2Diagnostic plots for the Box-Behnken model adequacy.
(A) Normal plot of residuals, (B) plot of internally studentized residuals vs. predicted response, (C) plot of internally studentized residuals vs. actual and (D) desirability ramp plot for optimization.
Fig 3HPLC chromatograms of polysaccharides.
(A) Standard, (B) MSPS, and (C) MPS.
Fig 4Antioxidant capacities of the polysaccharides in vitro.
(A) DPPH radical-scavenging activity, (B) hydroxyl radical-scavenging activity and (C) reducing power.
Fig 5Hepatic parameters of (A) MDA content, (C) GSH-Px activity, (D) CHOL level and (E) T-AOC activity and serum parameters of (B) SOD activity a p < 0.01 compared with the normal control group.