| Literature DB >> 28816008 |
Paula Alexandra Postu1, Jaures A K Noumedem2, Oana Cioanca3, Monica Hancianu3, Marius Mihasan1, Mitica Ciorpac1, Dragos Lucian Gorgan1, Brindusa Alina Petre4, Lucian Hritcu1.
Abstract
We investigated the neuropharmacological effects of the methanolic extract from Lactuca capensis Thunb. leaves (100 and 200 mg/kg) for 21 days on memory impairment in an Alzheimer's disease (AD) rat model produced by direct intraventricular delivery of amyloid-β1-42 (Aβ1-42). Behavioural assays such as Y-maze and radial arm maze test were used for assessing memory performance. Aβ1-42 decreased cognitive performance in the behavioural tests which were ameliorated by pre-treatment with the methanolic extract. Acetylcholinesterase activity and oxidant-antioxidant balance in the rat hippocampus were abnormally altered by Aβ1-42 treatment while these deficits were recovered by pre-treatment with the methanolic extract. In addition, rats were given Aβ1-42 exhibited in the hippocampus decreased brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) mRNA copy number and increased IL-1β mRNA copy number which was reversed by the methanolic extract administration. These findings suggest that the methanolic extract could be a potent neuropharmacological agent against dementia via modulating cholinergic activity, increasing of BDNF levels and promoting antioxidant action in the rat hippocampus.Entities:
Keywords: IL-1β; Lactuca capensis extract; amyloid; antioxidant; brain-derived neurotrophic factor; dementia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28816008 PMCID: PMC5742732 DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.13299
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
Figure 1Representative HPLC‐DAD chromatography profile at 280 nm for the flavonoids and hydroxycinnamic acids of the methanolic extract from Lactuca capensis leaves: (1) catechin (peak 1); (2) rutoside (peak 2); (3) caffeic acid (peak 3); (4) cyanidol (peak 4); (5) rosmarinic acid (peak 5); (6) cinnamic acid (peak 6); (7) quercetin‐3‐arabinoside (peak 7); (8) luteolin (peak 8); (9) quercetin (peak 9); (10) apigenin (peak 10) and (11) kaempferol (peak 11).
Compounds identified in the methanolic extract from Lactuca capensis leaves
| Compound | Concentration (mg/g dry extract) |
|---|---|
| Catechin (1) | 2.4958 |
| Rutoside (2) | 2.5915 |
| Caffeic acid (3) | 1.7579 |
| Cyanidol (4) | 0.1472 |
| Rosmarinic acid (5) | 5.2784 |
| Cinnamic acid (6) | 0.1627 |
| Quercetin‐3‐arabinoside (7) | 0.7535 |
| Luteolin (8) | 0.2088 |
| Quercetin (9) | 0.0162 |
| Apigenin (10) | 0.6121 |
| Kaempferol (11) | 0.0135 |
Figure 2Effects of the methanolic extract from Lactuca capensis leaves (100 and 200 mg/kg) administration in the Y‐maze on the spontaneous alternation % (A) and the number of arm entries (B) in the Aβ1‐42‐treated rats. Values are means ± S.E.M. (n = 5 animals per group). For Tukey's post hoc analyses— #Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L100: P < 0.01 and ##Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L200: P < 0.01 (A).
Figure 3Effects of the methanolic extract from Lactuca capensis leaves (100 and 200 mg/kg) administration on the working memory errors (A) and the reference memory errors (B) during 7‐day training in the radial arm maze in the Aβ1‐42‐treated rats. Values are means ± S.E.M. (n = 5 animals per group). For Tukey's post hoc analyses—#Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L100: P < 0.0001 and ##Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L200: P < 0.0001 (A) and #Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L100: P < 0.0001 and ##Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L200: P < 0.0001 (B).
Figure 4Effects of the methanolic extract from Lactuca capensis leaves (100 and 200 mg/kg) administration on the AChE (A), SOD‐specific (B) and GPX (C)‐specific activities, the total content of reduced GSH (D), protein carbonyl (E) and MDA (F) levels estimated in the rat hippocampal homogenates of the Aβ1‐42‐treated rats. Values are means ± S.E.M. (n = 5 animals per group). For Tukey's post hoc analyses—#Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L100: P < 0.01 and ##Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L200: P < 0.01 (A), #Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L100: P < 0.01 and ##Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L200: P < 0.001 (B), #Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L100: P < 0.001 and ##Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L200: P < 0.0001 (C), #Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L100: P < 0.001 and ##Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L200: P < 0.001 (D), #Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L100: P < 0.001 and ##Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L200: P < 0.001 (E) and #Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L100: P < 0.01 and ##Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L200: P < 0.0001 (F).
Figure 5Enrichment factor of apoptosis levels in the Aβ1‐42 groups pre‐treated with the methanolic extract from Lactuca capensis leaves (100 and 200 mg/kg). Values are means ± S.E.M. (n = 5 animals per group). For Tukey's post hoc analyses—#Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L100: P < 0.01 and ##Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L200: P < 0.01
Figure 6BDNF mRNA copy number (A) and IL‐1β mRNA copy number (B) in the Aβ1‐42 groups pre‐treated with the methanolic extract from Lactuca capensis leaves (100 and 200 mg/kg). Values are means ± S.E.M. (n = 5 animals per group). For Tukey's post hoc analyses—#Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L100: P < 0.001 and ##Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L200: P < 0.0001 (A) and #Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L100: P < 0.01 and ##Aβ1‐42 versus Aβ1‐42+L200: P < 0.01 (B).