| Literature DB >> 28067838 |
Giang Thanh Thi Ho1, Eili Tranheim Kase2, Helle Wangensteen3, Hilde Barsett4.
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is manifested by progressive metabolic impairments in tissues such as skeletal muscle and liver, and these tissues become less responsive to insulin, leading to hyperglycemia. In the present study, stimulation of glucose and oleic acid uptake by elderflower extracts, constituents and metabolites were tested in vitro using the HepG2 hepatocellular liver carcinoma cell line and human skeletal muscle cells. Among the crude extracts, the 96% EtOH extract showed the highest increase in glucose and oleic acid uptake in human skeletal muscle cells and HepG2-cells. The flavonoids and phenolic acids contained therein were potent stimulators of glucose and fatty acid uptake in a dose-dependent manner. Most of the phenolic constituents and several of the metabolites showed high antioxidant activity and showed considerably higher α-amylase and α-glucosidase inhibition than acarbose. Elderflower might therefore be valuable as a functional food against diabetes.Entities:
Keywords: HepG2-cell; Sambucus nigra; antioxidant; elderflower; glucose uptake; human skeletal muscle; metabolic disorder; oleic acid uptake; type 2 diabetes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28067838 PMCID: PMC6155811 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22010090
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Structures of constituents and metabolites from elderflower.
Figure 2Effects of elderflower extracts, constituents and metabolites on glucose uptake in human myotubes. Myotubes were treated with (A) 12.5, 25 and 50 µg/mL of different crude extracts; (B,C) 0.1, 1 and 10 µM of elderflower phenolic compounds and metabolites for 2 days. Thereafter, the cells were exposed to [14C(U)]-glucose (1 μCi/mL, 100 μM) for 4 h as described in the Materials and Methods section. 22-S-hydroxycholesterol (22-SHC) (10 μM) was used as positive control. The figures show [14C(U)]-glucose uptake given as means ± standard error of the mean (SEM) (n = 3) from separate experiments. * p < 0.05 vs. control (0.1% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)).
Figure 3Effects of elderflower extracts, constituents and metabolites on oleic acid uptake in human myotubes. Myotubes were treated with (A) 12.5, 25 and 50 µg/mL of different crude extracts; (B,C) 0.1, 1 and 10 µM of elderflower phenolic compounds and metabolites for 2 days. Thereafter, the cells were exposed to [14C]-oleic acid (37 kBq, 100 µM) for 4 h as described in Materials and Methods. A synthetic liver X receptor (LXR) agonist T0901317 (10 μM) was used as positive control. The figures show [14C]-oleic acid uptake given as means ± SEM (n = 3) from separate experiments. * p < 0.05 vs. control (0.1% DMSO).
Scavenging of 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical, 15-lipoxygenase (15-LO), xanthine oxidase (XO), α-glucosidase and α-amylase inhibitory activity of elderflower crude extracts. IC50 values ± standard deviation (SD) are shown.
| Elderflower Extract | DPPH (µg/mL) | 15-LO (µg/mL) | XO (µg/mL) | α-Glucosidase (µg/mL) | α-Amylase (µg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCM | >167 | 125.9 ± 3.9 | >167 | 105 ± 5.6 | 103 ± 5.9 |
| 96% EtOH | 9.2 ± 0.9 | 17.9 ± 3.6 | 59.3 ± 6.3 | 4.8 ± 0.5 | 2.8 ± 1.1 |
| 50% EtOH | 20.2 ± 3.9 | 24.4 ± 3.1 | 79.5 ± 4.1 | 8.9 ± 1.1 | 3.1 ± 1.3 |
| 50 °C Water | 68.9 ± 2.3 | 126.6 ± 3.9 | 156.5 ± 5.3 | 78.9 ± 5.8 | 71.8 ± 4.1 |
| 100 °C Water | 32.0 ± 2.9 | 75.9 ± 6.5 | 135.6 ± 7.8 | 65.3 ± 4.6 | 66.2 ± 5.6 |
| Quercetin (control) | 2.8 ± 0.3 | 29.3 ± 1.9 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | nt | nt |
| Acarbose (control) | nt | nt | nt | 84.7 ± 3.8 | 73.3 ± 4.3 |
nt: Not tested. DCM: dichloromethane.
Scavenging of DPPH radical, 15-LO, XO, α-glucosidase and α-amylase inhibitory activity of phenolic compounds from elderflower. IC50 values ± SD are shown.
| Test Compound | DPPH 1 (µM) | 15-LO 1 (µM) | XO 1 (µM) | α-Glucosidase 2 (µM) | α-Amylase 3 (µM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quercetin 1 | 9.3 ± 1.5 | 95.9 ± 1.3 | 2.3 ± 0.3 | 2.6 ± 0.9 | 2.1 ± 0.5 |
| Quercetin-3-glucoside | 17.6 ± 3.2 | 102.3 ± 5.3 | 105.9 ± 5.3 | 4.1 ± 1.9 | 3.0 ± 1.2 |
| Quercetin-3-rhamnoside | 19.1 ± 2.1 | 108.4 ± 4.6 | 104.6 ± 4.6 | 3.9 ± 1.4 | 3.5 ± 0.9 |
| Rutin (Quercetin-3-rutinoside) | 22.5 ± 1.6 | 99.3 ± 1.1 | 42.9 ± 2.9 | 4.6 ± 2.3 | 4.1 ± 0.8 |
| Kaempferol | 10.6 ± 3.9 | 93.7 ± 3.7 | 1.8 ± 0.3 | 4.5 ± 1.2 | 3.6 ± 1.1 |
| Kaempferol-3-rutinoside | 30.6 ± 3.9 | 108.7 ± 5.6 | 63.8 ± 2.1 | 23.9 ± 1.1 | 19.1 ± 0.5 |
| Isorhamnetin | 63.3 ± 2.3 | 103.1 ± 2.4 | 2.8 ± 0.7 | 8.1 ± 3.1 | 7.5 ± 0.9 |
| Isorhamnetin-3-rutinoside | 85.0 ± 2.1 | 115.3 ± 6.2 | 125.0 ± 3.9 | 25.2 ± 2.9 | 26.2 ± 0.7 |
| Naringenin | 23.3 ± 1.4 | 124.1 ± 3.5 | 95.1 ± 4.5 | 7.5 ± 1.1 | 6.2 ± 1.1 |
| Catechin | 19.0 ± 1.1 | 128.1 ± 5.9 | >167 | 18.5 ± 2.2 | 14.1 ± 0.8 |
| Epicatechin | 15.6 ± 2.3 | 115.6 ± 7.9 | >167 | 12.1 ± 2.3 | 9.7 ± 2.1 |
| Caffeic acid | 90.3 ± 4.3 | 125.9 ± 4.7 | 107.3 ± 3.2 | 18.5 ± 0.9 | 13.9 ± 0.7 |
| Chlorogenic acid | 17.5 ± 3.9 | 106.2 ± 2.3 | 24.2 ± 5.3 | 10.5 ± 2.1 | 9.1 ± 1.1 |
| Neochlorogenic acid | 19.6 ± 1.6 | 115.1 ± 5.8 | 26.2 ± 3.1 | 13.1 ± 1.3 | 15.4 ± 3.2 |
| Benzoic acid | 145.3 ± 5.8 | 137.6 ± 6.5 | >167 | 128.9 ± 3.8 | 124.1 ± 5.3 |
| 3-Hydroxyphenylacetic acid | 125.3 ± 4.8 | 133.9 ± 5.8 | >167 | 68.9 ± 3.8 | 44.8 ± 5.3 |
| 3,4-Dihydroxyphenylacetic acid | 115.9 ± 1.4 | 135.5 ± 7.3 | >167 | 78.5 ± 1.6 | 74.9 ± 1.7 |
| 4-Methylcatechol | 40.5 ± 3.6 | 129.0 ± 5.2 | >167 | 98.9 ± 3.5 | 94.8 ± 6.8 |
1 Quercetin was used as positive control in DPPH, 15-LO and XO assays; 2 Acarbose was used as a positive control (IC50 131.2 ± 9.3 µM); 3 Acarbose was used as a positive control (IC50 113.5 ± 4.6 µM).