| Literature DB >> 28946917 |
Linghua Lei1,2, Yanhua Chen2,3, Lijun Ou4, Yinglong Xu5, Xiaoying Yu6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extracts of plants have been considered as sources of natural antioxidant agents. In this study, we aimed to explore the antioxidant capacity of the aqueous root extract of Asparagus cochinchinensis (Lour.) Merr.Entities:
Keywords: Aging; Antioxidant; Asparagus cochinchinensis (Lour.) Merr.; Enzyme activity; Root
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28946917 PMCID: PMC5613520 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-017-1975-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Primer sequences for specific genes
| Gene | Primer sequence |
|---|---|
| SOD | Forward: 5′-ACGAAGGGAGGTGGATGCTG-3′ |
| Reverse: 5′-ACGGTTGGAGGCGTTCTGCT-3′ | |
| NOS | Forward: 5′-TTGGAGCGAGTTGTGGATTG-3′ |
| Reverse: 5′-TGAGGGCTTGGCTGAGTGA-3′ | |
| GPX | Forward: 5′-GCCTGGATGGGGAGAAGATA-3′ |
| Reverse: 5′-GCAAGGGAAGCCGAGAACTA-3′ | |
| β-actin | Forward: 5′-GAGACCT TCAACACCCCAGC-3′ |
| Reverse: 5′- ATGTCACGCACGATTTCCC −3′ |
SOD superoxide dismutase, NOS nitric oxide synthase, GPX glutathione peroxidase
Fig. 1Radical scavenging ability of Asparagus cochinchinensis (Lour.) Merr. determined by detecting 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical (DPPH) and 3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic (ABTS+·) scavenging activities in vitro. Experiments were repeated three times. *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 compared with the Vc control group
Effects of Asparagus cochinchinensis (Lour.) Merr on the activities of NOS, CAT and SOD
| Treatment | SOD/U mg−1 prot | NOS/U mg−1 prot | CAT/U mg−1 prot | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brain | Negative control group | 98.31 ± 4.44a | 1.48 ± 0.04a | 32.34 ± 0.98b |
| Aging model group | 63.99 ± 4.20b | 1.35 ± 0.06b | 20.67 ± 2.16c | |
| Vc positive control group | 100.36 ± 5.01a | 1.59 ± 0.05a | 48.11 ± 2.17a | |
| Extract treatment group | 95.58 ± 4.05a | 1.61 ± 0.06a | 46.85 ± 1.81a | |
| Liver | Negative control group | 55.65 ± 2. 81b | 0.84 ± 0. 13b | 54.61 ± 3. 32a |
| Aging model group | 49.54 ± 2. 88c | 0.74 ± 0. 12c | 45.72 ± 4. 51b | |
| Vc positive control group | 59.75 ± 3.89a | 1.24 ± 0.31a | 56.18 ± 4.38a | |
| Extract treatment group | 60.98 ± 4. 09a | 1.12 ± 0. 29a | 55.16 ± 5. 09a | |
| Serum | Negative control group | 86.42 ± 9. 29b | 40.52 ± 3.32b | 0.31 ± 0.08a |
| Aging model group | 72.58 ± 6.47c | 33.76 ± 4.51c | 0.12 ± 0.013b | |
| Vc positive control group | 96.97 ± 7.87a | 47.55 ± 3.69a | 0.34 ± 0.06a | |
| Extract treatment group | 98.65 ± 8.00a | 47.21 ± 3.24a | 0.35 ± 0.057a | |
| Heart | Negative control group | 51.58 ± 2.96a | 0.51 ± 0.06a | 5.06 ± 0.75a |
| Aging model group | 33.96 ± 2.19c | 0.26 ± 0.05b | 1.53 ± 0.38b | |
| Vc positive control group | 42.87 ± 1.89b | 0.54 ± 0.07a | 5.01 ± 0.54a | |
| Extract treatment group | 44.75 ± 2.45b | 0.48 ± 0.09a | 4.91 ± 0.45a | |
| Kidney | Negative control group | 56.24 ± 4.57b | 1.76 ± 0.27a | 14.30 ± 1.34b |
| Aging model group | 50.87 ± 5.09c | 1.51 ± 0.14b | 5.24 ± 1.06c | |
| Vc positive control group | 63.77 ± 5.31a | 1.68 ± 0.15a | 17.65 ± 1.87a | |
| Extract treatment group | 61.33 ± 6.47a | 1.79 ± 0. 20a | 18.73 ± 1. 61a |
Note: Data were expressed as mean ± SD; One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the difference among groups; Values with different letters showed significant difference
SOD superoxide dismutase, NOS nitric oxide synthase, CAT catalase
Effects of Asparagus cochinchinensis (Lour.) Merr on the NO and MDA contents
| Treatment | NO/μmol L−1 | MDA/U mg−1 prot | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brain | Negative control group | 12.50 ± 1.06b | 1.43 ± 0.089b |
| Aging model group | 5.08 ± 0.850c | 2.59 ± 0.25a | |
| Vc positive control group | 26.36 ± 1.89a | 0.89 ± 0.034c | |
| Extract treatment group | 24.34 ± 1.83a | 1.05 ± 0.028c | |
| Liver | Negative control group | 4.95 ± 0.17b | 1.12 ± 0.27b |
| Aging model group | 1.91 ± 0.16c | 1.55 ± 0.14a | |
| Vc positive control group | 5.57 ± 0.36a | 0.98 ± 0.11c | |
| Extract treatment group | 5.64 ± 0.31a | 1.10 ± 0.20b | |
| Serum | Negative control group | 907.64 ± 46.14b | 24.96 ± 3.80b |
| Aging model group | 503.26 ± 27.08c | 29.64 ± 4.46a | |
| Vc positive control group | 987.89 ± 51.27a | 21.87 ± 3.14c | |
| Extract treatment group | 965.52 ± 41.44a | 22.97 ± 2.81c | |
| Heart | Negative control group | 4.08 ± 0.92a | 0.39 ± 0.078b |
| Aging model group | 1.10 ± 0.24c | 2.53 ± 0.35a | |
| Vc positive control group | 3.77 ± 0.44b | 0.36 ± 0.08b | |
| Extract treatment group | 3.61 ± 0.38b | 0.45 ± 0.08b | |
| Kidney | Negative control group | 6.12 ± 0.62b | 2.24 ± 0.39b |
| Aging model group | 3.09 ± 0.27c | 4.90 ± 0.51a | |
| Vc positive control group | 12.66 ± 1.45a | 1.69 ± 0.49c | |
| Extract treatment group | 13.21 ± 1.67a | 1.73 ± 0.45c |
Note: Data were expressed as mean ± SD; One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the difference among groups; Values with different letters showed significant difference
NO nitric oxide, MDA malondialdehyde
Fig. 2Different tissues stained with hematoxylin and eosin obtained from D-galactose-induced senile mice. A, liver; B, kidney; C, brain; D, heart; 1, the control group; 2, the aging model group; 3, the Vc control group; and 4, the extract treatment group. Scale bars: 100 μm (liver and kidney) or 50 μm (brain and heart)
Fig. 3Nitric oxide synthase (NOS), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and glutathione peroxidase (GPX) gene expression levels in the serum, liver, and kidney, as determined by semi-quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction