| Literature DB >> 30563925 |
Iris Ucella de Medeiros1, Rhoza Araújo de Medeiros1, Raul Henandes Bortolin1, Fernando Márlisson de Queiroz2, Vivian Nogueira Silbiger1,3, Stephan Pflugmacher4, Aline Schwarz5,3.
Abstract
The effect of Cereus jamacaru ethanolic extract in rats was analyzed using genotoxicity assays and liver ABCB1 and CYP2D4 gene expression. The lyophilized extract of C. jamacaru cladodes was analyzed with LC-MS/MS. Male Wistar rats (n=36) were equally distributed into six groups that did (+) or did not (-) receive cyclophosphamide treatments: Control (-); Control (+); EXP 1 (-), and EXP 1 (+), both treated with 210 mg/kg of ethanolic extract; and EXP 2 (-) and EXP 2 (+), both treated with 420 mg/kg of ethanolic extract. After 30 d of treatment, body weight and food and water intake were monitored. Right femur of the rats and spinal canal fluid were harvested and used for genotoxicity assays, and the liver samples were used for gene expression studies. The phytochemical analysis identified novel compounds. Animals treated with C. jamacaru showed lower body weight and food ingestion compared to controls (P<0.05). The genotoxicity assay showed an absence of ethanolic extract cytotoxicity. CYP2D4 expression was higher in EXP 2 groups compared with EXP 1 (-) group (P<0.05). ABCB1A expression was higher in negative groups compared with the positive groups. These results indicated a new phytochemical characterization of C. jamacaru and its effect on food ingestion and body weight gain. Moreover, the genotoxicity assay suggested that C. jamacaru ethanolic extract treatment presents significant intrinsic genotoxic potential and the enhanced expression of ABCB1 and CYP2D4 on C. jamacaru extract treatment suggests a role of the efflux transporter and microsomal enzyme, respectively, in C. jamacaru pharmacokinetics.Entities:
Keywords: Gene expression/regulation; Kidney/renal toxicology; Liver/hepatic toxicology; Pharmacokinetics; folk medicine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30563925 PMCID: PMC6341123 DOI: 10.1042/BSR20180672
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosci Rep ISSN: 0144-8463 Impact factor: 3.840
Figure 1Mass spectrum analysis of C. jamacaru ethanolic extract
(A) Hordenine; (B) N-methyltyramine; (C) Tyramine; (D) Tyrosine.
Phytochemical analysis of C. jamacaru ethanolic extract by LC–MS/MS
| Compound - molecular structure/weight | Ethanol extract |
|---|---|
| Corilagin (gallotanine), C27 H24O18 /636.5 | D |
| Benzoic acid, C6H5COOH/122.1 | D |
| Arachidic acid, C20H40O2/312.5 | D |
| Palmitic acid, C16H32O2/256 | D |
| Oleic acid, C18H34O2/282 | D |
| Cinnamic acid, C9H8O2/148.1 | D |
| Stearic acid, C18H36O2/284.5 | D |
| Caprylic acid, C8H16O2/144.2 | D |
| Myristic acid, C14H28O2/228.4 | D |
| Valeric acid, C5H10O2/102.1 | D |
| Propionic acid, C3H6O2/74.1 | D |
| Acetic acid, C2H4O2/60.1 | D |
| 1,2-Benzoquinone, C6H4O2/108.1 | D |
| Anthraquinone, C14H8O2/208.2 | D |
| Chloranil, C6Cl4O2/245.9 | D |
| Hydroquinone, C6H4(OH)2/110.1 | D |
| Phenol, C6H6O1/94.1 | D |
| Camphor, C10H16O/152.2 | D |
| Cysteine, C3H7NO2S/121.2 | D |
| Geranylacetone, C13H22O/194 | D |
| Hordenine, C10H15NO/165 | D |
| Tyramine, C8H11NO/137 | D |
| N-methyltyramine, C9H14NO/151 | D |
| β-Sitosterol, C29H50O/414 | D |
| Tyrosine, C9H11NO3/181.2 | D |
| E-guggulsterone, C21H28O2/313.3 | D |
Lyophilized extract from C. jamacaru cladode was used for phytochemical characterization. Data were compared using the LightSight database program for metabolic identification. MRM mode: quadrupole 1 was fixed at a set parent ion; quadrupole 2 was used as a collision chamber to induce fragmentation; quadrupole 3 was fixed at a set daughter ion.
Body weight gain and food and water intake
| Control (−) plus control (+) | EXP1 (−) plus EXP1 (+) | EXP2 (−) plus EXP2 (+) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight gain | 42.83 ± 4.43 | 16.33 ± 7.32* | 11.33 ± 4.15* | 0.001 |
| Food intake | 38.25 ± 0.58 | 33.60 ± 0.79* | 33.17 ± 0.53* | < 0.001 |
| Water intake | 65.00 ± 5.18 | 58.32 ± 1.78 | 65.00 ± 2.32 | >0.05 |
Data are presented as means ± standard deviation of groups: Control (−), Control (+), healthy animals treated with cyclophosphamide, Exp 1 (−), healthy animals treated with 210 mg/kg of ethanolic extract, EXP 1 (+), healthy animals treated with 210 mg/kg of ethanolic extract plus cyclophosphamide, EXP 2 (−), healthy animals treated with 420 mg/kg of ethanolic extract, and EXP 2 (+), healthy animals treated with 420 mg/kg of ethanolic extract plus cyclophosphamide. ANOVA and the post-hoc Holm–Sidak t-test for multiple comparisons; P<0.05 was considered significant. *P<0,001 compared with control (−) plus control (+).
(Anti)Genotoxicity analysis of animals treated with C. jamacaru ethanolic extract and/or cyclophosphamide
| Control (+) | Control (−) | EXP1 (+) | EXP1 (−) | EXP2 (+) | EXP2 (−) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNPCE | 164.13 ± 16.81 | 23.84 ± 5.56 a/*** | 81.73 ± 2.0a/**, b/*** | 45.17 ± 9.05 b/*** | 173.88 ± 21.97a/*** | 128.81 ± 11.35a/***, d/* | 23,057 |
| PCE | 199.17 ± 16.20 | 220.83 ± 16.75 | 246.67 ± 20.80 | 353.33 ± 28.13a/***, b/***, c/** | 295.83 ± 22.30a/*,b/** | 395.83 ± 25.18a/***, b/***, d/** | 12,438 |
| NCE | 779.17 ± 16.75 | 800.83 ± 16.20 | 753.33 ± 20.80 | 646.67 ± 28.13a/***, b/***, c/** | 704.17 ± 22.26 a/**,b/* | 604.17 ± 25.18a/***, b/***, d/** | 12,438 |
| PCE/NCE ratio | 0.240 ± 0.02 | 0.277 ± 0.02 | 0.333 ± 0.4 | 0.562 ± 0.07 a/***, b/***, c/** | 0.427 ± 0.05a/*,b/* | 0.671 ± 0.07 a/***, b/***, d/** | 10,891 |
NCE, normochromic erythrocytes; PCE, polychromatic erythrocytes; MNPCE, the number of micronuclei PCE. Data are presented as means ± standard deviation of groups: Control (−), Control (+), healthy animals treated with cyclophosphamide, Exp 1 (−), healthy animals treated with 210 mg/kg of ethanolic extract, EXP 1 (+), healthy animals treated with 210 mg/kg of ethanolic extract plus cyclophosphamide, EXP 2 (−), healthy animals treated with 420 mg/kg of ethanolic extract and EXP 2 (+), healthy animals treated with 420 mg/kg of ethanolic extract plus cyclophosphamide. ANOVA and the post-hoc Holm–Sidak t-test for multiple comparisons; P<0.05 was considered significant. a/*** P<0.001 compared with control (−) group; a/**P<0.01 compared with control (−) group; a/* P<0.05 compared with control (−) group; b/*** P<0.001 compared with control (+) group; b/** P<0.01 compared with control (+) group; b/* P<0.05 compared with control (+) group; c/** P<0.01 compared with EXP1 (+) group; d/** P<0.01 compared with EXP2 (+) group; d/* P<0.05 compared with EXP2 (+) group.
Organs/body weight ratios of animals treated with C. jamacaru ethanolic extracts and/or cyclophosphamide
| Control (−) plus control (+) | EXP1 (−) plus EXP1 (+) | EXP2 (−) plus EXP2 (+) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liver | 29.1 ± 0.463 | 29.8 ± 0.679 | 30.4 ± 1.020 |
| Kidney | 3.21 ± 0.0773 | 3.23 ± 0.199 | 3.46 ± 0.0883 |
| Heart | 3.21 ± 0.0949 | 3.28 ± 0.0944 | 3.43 ± 0.0494 |
| Splenn | 2.5 ± 0.218 | 2.22 ± 0.185 | 2.37 ± 0.204 |
| Pancreas | 1.4 ± 0.121 | 1.62 ± 0.206 | 1.61 ± 0.142 |
Data are presented as means ± standard deviation of groups: Control (−), Control (+), healthy animals treated with cyclophosphamide, Exp 1 (−), healthy animals treated with 210 mg/kg of ethanolic extract, EXP 1 (+), healthy animals treated with 210 mg/kg of ethanolic extract plus cyclophosphamide, EXP 2 (−), healthy animals treated with 420 mg/kg of ethanolic extract and EXP 2 (+), healthy animals treated with 420 mg/kg of ethanolic extract plus cyclophosphamide. ANOVA and the post-hoc Holm–Sidak t-test for multiple comparisons; P<0.05 was considered significant.
Figure 2Relative mRNA expression quantification of ABCB1A and CYP2D4 in the liver
CYP2D4 (A) and ABCB1A (B) mRNA expression in liver tissue of Control (−); Control (+), healthy animals treated with cyclophosphamide; EXP 1 (−), healthy animals treated with 210 mg/kg of ethanolic extract; EXP 1 (+), healthy animals treated with 210 mg/kg of ethanolic extract plus cyclophosphamide; EXP 2 (−), healthy animals treated with 420 mg/kg of ethanolic extract; and EXP 2 (+), healthy animals treated with 420 mg/kg of ethanolic extract plus cyclophosphamide. All data are expressed as fold-change compared with control (−) group values, normalized to GAPDH. Comparisons between groups were analyzed with Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA on Ranks and Dunn’s post-hoc. P<0.05 was considered significant.