| Literature DB >> 29861828 |
Zhanghua Liao1, Haoran Cai1, Zekun Xu1, Jing Wang2, Chen Qiu1, Jing Xie1, Wuyang Huang3,4, Zhongquan Sui1.
Abstract
Oxidative stress and inflammation are considered as two key factors that contribute to the development of atherosclerosis. This study was to investigate the antioxidant capacity of huskless barley and to explore its protective functions through the regulation of the antioxidant defense and inflammatory response in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC). The oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC), ferric-reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), and 2,2-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) diammonium salt (ABTS) scavenging capacity of water and alkali extracts of the polysaccharides from nine huskless barley varieties were investigated in vitro. The antioxidant properties of the alkaline extracts were more pronounced than those of the water extracts. The results from the cell model showed that pretreatment of HUVEC with the water or alkaline extracts of the polysaccharides from the huskless barley cultivars QHH and NLGL decreased the levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS), monocyte chemotactic protein 1 (MCP-1), and vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) but increased the level of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and maintained cell viability. Huskless barley polysaccharide extracts exhibited the vasodilatory effect of inhibiting angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) production. These discoveries revealed the potent protective functions of barley in oxidative damage and a potential role for barley in preventing chronic inflammation in cardiovascular diseases.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29861828 PMCID: PMC5971280 DOI: 10.1155/2018/3846029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Summary of the antioxidant capacities of huskless barley in vitro.
| Sample | ABTS | FRAP ( | ORAC ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 (g/L) | TEAC (mg/g DW) | ||||
| Black and white huskless barley (BW80) | AE | 2.01 ± 0.06b | 9.18 ± 0.09d | 84.1 ± 1.98e | 652.45 ± 13.03a |
| WE | 9.91 ± 0.09h,i | 1.86 ± 0.04k | 36.7 ± 0.70i | 396.57 ± 7.16e | |
|
| |||||
| JiuGe (JG) | AE | 2.22 ± 0.14c | 8.32 ± 0.09f | 131.1 ± 3.63a | 539.96 ± 3.60b |
| WE | 9.68 ± 0.16h | 1.91 ± 0.05j,k | 26.5 ± 1.95k | 237.35 ± 9.51i | |
|
| |||||
| DiQing 3 (DQ3) | AE | 2.84 ± 0.07e | 6.50 ± 0.18h | 71.6 ± 1.35f | 147.81 ± 8.50l,m |
| WE | 11.41 ± 0.11k | 1.62 ± 0.08l | 15.8 ± 0.75m | 82.71 ± 2.50n | |
|
| |||||
| Long and black huskless barley (LB) | AE | 2.10 ± 0.22b,c | 8.79 ± 0.08e | 51.1 ± 1.36g | 205.54 ± 9.57j |
| WE | 11.74 ± 0.09l | 1.57 ± 0.04l | 41.6 ± 0.93h | 127.78 ± 8.00m | |
|
| |||||
| YunQing 2 (YQ2) | AE | 1.93 ± 0.04b | 9.56 ± 0.05c | 111.1 ± 4.15b | 515.44 ± 4.01c |
| WE | 7.41 ± 0.08f | 2.49 ± 0.04i | 41.8 ± 1.41h | 348.24 ± 13.56f | |
|
| |||||
| GuiBaDingGeNa (GBDGN) | AE | 1.74 ± 0.14a | 10.61 ± 0.10a | 92.1 ± 2.52d | 467.55 ± 21.09d |
| WE | 12.17 ± 0.03m | 1.52 ± 0.07l | 31.6 ± 2.10j | 268.00 ± 5.29h | |
|
| |||||
| Short and white huskless barley (SW) | AE | 1.74 ± 0.15a | 10.61 ± 0.10a | 100.0 ± 4.10c | 322.41 ± 11.00g |
| WE | 10.26 ± 0.05j | 1.80 ± 0.06k | 34.9 ± 1.92i,j | 71.49 ± 4.50o | |
|
| |||||
| QingHaiHuang (QHH) | AE | 2.58 ± 0.07d | 7.16 ± 0.03g | 81.4 ± 2.62e | 248.89 ± 11.05h,i |
| WE | 13.43 ± 0.14n | 1.37 ± 0.05m | 41.8 ± 1.70h | 153.67 ± 9.58l | |
|
| |||||
| NanLongGeNa (NLGN) | AE | 1.90 ± 0.03a,b | 9.72 ± 0.075b | 97.2 ± 3.46c,d | 332.49 ± 4.08f,g |
| WE | 9.30 ± 0.08g | 1.98 ± 0.055j | 18.6 ± 1.75l | 172.56 ± 7.17k | |
AE: alkaline extract; WE: water extract. Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05, as indicated by Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) test).
Figure 1Antioxidant capacity of various huskless Barley extracts in vitro. (a) ABTS-scavenging capacity; (b) ferric-reducing antioxidant power (FRAP); and (c) oxygen radical-absorbance capacity (ORAC).
Figure 2Effects of the water and alkaline extracts from QHH and NLGN on cell viability. ∗∗∗ indicates P < 0.001 versus the TNF-α group.
Figure 3Effects of water and alkaline extracts from QHH and NLGN on (a) SOD expression and (b) ROS levels in the TNF-α-induced HUVEC. ∗∗ and ∗∗∗ indicate P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively, versus the TNF-α group.
Figure 4Effects of the water and alkaline extracts from QHH and NLGN on (a) MCP-1 and (b) VCAM-1 expression in the TNF-α-induced HUVEC. ∗ and ∗∗∗ indicate P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively, versus the TNF-α group.
Figure 5Effects of the water and alkaline extracts from QHH and NLGN on ACE expression in the TNF-α-induced HUVEC. ∗, ∗∗, and ∗∗∗ indicate P < 0.05, P < 0.01, and P < 0.001, respectively, versus the TNF-α group.