| Literature DB >> 27543097 |
Kyung-Baeg Roh1, Hyoyoung Kim1, Seungwoo Shin1, Young-Soo Kim1, Jung-A Lee1, Mi Ok Kim2, Eunsun Jung3, Jongsung Lee4, Deokhoon Park1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Zea mays L. (Z. mays) has been used for human consumption in the various forms of meal, cooking oil, thickener in sauces and puddings, sweetener in processed food and beverage products, bio-disel. However, especially, in case of husk extract of Z. mays, little is known about its anti-inflammatory effects. Therefore, in this study, the anti-inflammatory effects of Z. mays husk extract (ZMHE) and its mechanisms of action were investigated.Entities:
Keywords: AP-1; COX-2; ICAM-1; NF-kB; Zea mays L; iNOS
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27543097 PMCID: PMC4992323 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-016-1284-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 1Effects of Z. mays extracts on NO production in LPS-induced RAW264.7 cells. a The cells were pretreated with the indicated concentrations of seven parts of Z. mays extract for 1 h and then further incubated with LPS (200 ng/ml) for 24 h. The amount of NO production was then determined using Griess assay. b Cell viability was measured by MTT assay. The results are mean ± standard deviation (SD) (n = 3). P < 0.01 vs. LPS-untreated control. *P < 0.01 vs. LPS-treated control
Nutrient composition of ZMHE
| Nutrient composition | g/ 100 g | |
|---|---|---|
| Fat | 1.16 | |
| Protein | 5.98 | |
| Ash | 18.21 | |
| Fibre | 0.07 | |
| Carbohydrate | Fructose | 14.95 |
| Glucose | 13.95 | |
| Sucrose | 24.14 | |
| Lactose | 0.00 | |
| Maltose | 0.00 | |
| Total | 53.04 | |
Total phenolic and flavonoid contents in ZMHE
| Total phenolic contents (mg GAE/g) | Total flavonoid contents (mg QUE/g) |
|---|---|
| 5.92 ± 0.104 | 35.40 ± 1.41 |
Fig. 2Effects of ZMHE on iNOS expression in LPS-induced RAW264.7 cells. a The iNOS luciferase reporter vector was transfected into RAW264.7 cells and cultured for 24 h. The cells were pretreated with ZMHE for 1 h and then stimulated with LPS (200 ng/ml). Luciferase activity was calculated against an LPS-unstimulated control. b The cells were pretreated with the indicated concentrations of ZMHE for 1 h and then further incubated with LPS (200 ng/ml). After 24 h incubation, the cell lysates were prepared and then subjected to Western blot analysis. The bands for iNOS were detected, and normalized to that of β-actin. Densitometric analysis was performed by using ImageJ program. The results are mean ± standard deviation (SD) (n = 3). P < 0.01 vs. LPS-untreated control. *P < 0.01 vs. LPS-treated control
Fig. 3Effects of ZMHE on activation of NF-kB and AP-1 in LPS-induced RAW264.7 cells. The NF-kB (a) or AP-1 (b) luciferase reporter vectors was transfected into RAW264.7 cells and cultured for 24 h. The cells were pretreated with ZMHE for 1 h and then stimulated with LPS (200 ng/ml). Luciferase activity was calculated against an LPS-unstimulated control. The results are mean ± standard deviation (SD) (n = 3). P < 0.01 vs. LPS-untreated control. *P < 0.05 vs. LPS-treated control. **P < 0.01 vs. LPS-treated control
Fig. 4Effects of ZMHE on eotaxin-1 gene expression. a The eotaxin-1 luciferase reporter vector was transfected into NIH/3 T3 cells and cultured for 24 h. The cells were pretreated with ZMHE for 1 h and then stimulated with IL-4. Luciferase activity was calculated against IL-4-unstimulated control. b Cells were pretreated with ZMHE for 1 h and then further incubated with IL-4 (50 ng/ml) for 24 h. Eotaxin-1 release was then determined using an ELISA. The results are mean ± standard deviation (SD) (n = 3). P < 0.01 vs. IL-4-untreated control. *P < 0.05 vs. IL-4-treated control. **P < 0.01 vs. IL-4-treated control
Fig. 5Effects of ZMHE on the expression ICAM-1. RAW264.7 cells were pretreated with ZMHE for 1 h before stimulation with LPS (200 ng/ml). After 24 h of incubation, the concentrations of sICAM-1 in the culture medium were measured by ELISA. The results are mean ± standard deviation (SD) (n = 3). P < 0.01 vs. LPS-untreated control. *P < 0.01 vs. LPS-treated control