| Literature DB >> 29615934 |
Giulia Querio1, Susanna Antoniotti1, Federica Foglietta2, Cinzia M Bertea1, Roberto Canaparo2, Maria P Gallo1, Renzo Levi1.
Abstract
Endothelial cells surround the lumen of blood vessels and modulate many physiological processes, including vascular tone, blood fluidity, inflammation, immunity and neovascularization. Many pathological conditions, including hyperglycemia, may alter endothelial function through oxidative stress, leading to impaired nitric oxide bioavailability and to the onset of an inflammatory state. As widely shown in the last decade, dietary intervention could represent a good strategy to control endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis. In particular, extensive research in the field of antioxidant natural derivatives has been conducted. In this study, we evaluated the capability of Chamazulene (Cham), an azulene compound from chamomile essential oil, to attenuate ROS levels in bovine aortic endothelial cells (BAECs) stressed with either high glucose or H2O2. Cell viability at different concentrations of Cham was evaluated through the WST-1 assay, while ROS production acutely induced by High Glucose (HG, 4.5 g/L) treatment or H2O2 (0.5 mM) for 3 h, was quantified with 2'-7'-Dichlorofluorescein diacetate (DCFH-DA) probe using confocal microscopy and flow cytometry. Our results showed a reduction in ROS produced after simultaneous treatment with High Glucose or H2O2 and Cham, thus suggesting an in vitro antioxidant activity of the compound. On the whole, this study shows for the first time the potential role of Cham as a scavenging molecule, suggesting its possible use to prevent the rise of endothelial ROS levels and the consequent vascular damage.Entities:
Keywords: Chamazulene; H2O2; ROS; bovine aortic endothelial cells; confocal microscopy; flow cytometry; glucose; oxidative stress
Year: 2018 PMID: 29615934 PMCID: PMC5869185 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00246
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Figure 1Chemical structure of Chamazulene, C.A.S. n 529-05-5.
Figure 2Effect of Chamazulene on BAECs at 3 h of treatment, as assessed by the WST-1 Assay. None of the concentrations used was toxic for BAECs. Cell viability was not affected by ethanol (light gray bars) used at the same amount present in each Cham treatment. Data shown are mean ± SD of three independent experiments and are expressed as percentage toward control (Data are presented from the lowest to the highest concentration used. Cham: 131.08 ± 13.91; 153.81 ± 16.50; 191.56 ± 18.18; 200.36 ± 18.38. EtOH: 162.68 ± 48.13; 226.67 ± 16.97; 168.90 ± 9.02; 152.22 ± 3.94); *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001.
Figure 3Chamazulene and ROS levels in confocal microscopy after HG treatment. (A) Images obtained with confocal microscopy and DCFH-DA probe (magnification 60x). Fluorescence intensity is represented in pseudo color scale (“fire” in ImageJ software): HG treatment for 3 h induced augmented ROS levels as underlined by the changing color of cells compared to control and it was balanced by the simultaneous treatment with Cham. (B) Histograms illustrate the relative MFI toward control derived from images analysis and show augmented ROS levels when cells are treated with HG and their decrease in a simultaneous treatment with Cham. Cham effect is not affected by ethanol. Data shown are mean±SD of three independent experiments (HG: 5.89 ± 1.84; Cham: 0.65 ± 0.47; HG + Cham: 0.29 ± 0.10; EtOH: 0.22 ± 0.09); ***P < 0.001.
Figure 4Chamazulene and ROS levels in flow cytometry after HG treatment. (A) Histograms illustrate the relative MFI toward control derived from flow cytometry and show ROS levels when cells are treated with HG and their decrease in a simultaneous treatment with Cham and HG. Cham effect is not affected by ethanol. Data shown are mean ± SD of three independent experiments (HG: 1.47 ± 0.35; Cham: 0.94 ± 0.03; HG + Cham: 0.96 ± 0.02; EtOH: 1.08 ± 0.02); *P < 0.05 (B) Representative graphs of flow cytometry in which is illustrated the variation in fluorescence in different treatments.
Figure 5Chamazulene and ROS levels in confocal microscopy after H2O2 treatment. (A) Images obtained with confocal microscopy and DCFH-DA probe (magnification 60x). Fluorescence intensity is represented in pseudo color scale (“fire” in ImageJ software): H2O2 treatment for 3h induce augmented ROS levels as underlined by the changing color of cells compared to control and it was balanced by the simultaneous treatment with Cham. (B) Histograms illustrate the relative MFI toward control derived from images analysis and show high ROS levels when cells are treated with H2O2 and their decrease in a simultaneous treatment with Cham and H2O2. Ethanol does not affect ROS level. Data shown are mean ± SD of three independent experiments (H2O2: 6.86 ± 1.00; Cham: 0.65 ± 0.47; H2O2+Cham: 0.30 ± 0.13; EtOH: 0.22 ± 0.09); ****P < 0.0001.
Figure 6Chamazulene and ROS levels in flow cytometry after H2O2 treatment. (A) Histograms illustrate the relative MFI toward control derived from flow cytometry and show high ROS levels when cells are treated with H2O2 and their decrease in a simultaneous treatment with Cham and H2O2. Cham effect is not affected by ethanol. Data shown are mean ± SD of three independent experiments (H2O2: 2.44 ± 0.13; Cham: 0.94 ± 0.03; H2O2+Cham: 1.68 ± 0.14; EtOH: 1.08 ± 0.02); ****P < 0.0001 (B) Representative graphs of flow cytometry in which is illustrated the variation in fluorescence in different treatments.