| Literature DB >> 30813472 |
Mihir Parikh1,2,3, Pema Raj4,5, Liping Yu6,7, Jo-Ann Stebbing8,9, Suvira Prashar10,11, Jay C Petkau12,13, Paramjit S Tappia14, Grant N Pierce15,16,17, Yaw L Siow18,19,20, Dan Brown21,22, Heather Blewett23,24,25, Thomas Netticadan26,27,28.
Abstract
The cardioprotective effects of ginseng root extracts have been reported. However, nothing is known about the myocardial actions of the phenolic compounds enriched in ginseng berry. Therefore, this study was undertaken to investigate the effects of American ginseng berry extract (GBE) in an experimental model of myocardial infarction (MI). Coronary artery ligation was performed on Sprague⁻Dawley male rats to induce MI after which animals were randomized into groups receiving either distilled water or GBE intragastrically for 8 weeks. Echocardiography and assays for malondialdehyde (MDA) and TNF-α were conducted. Flow cytometry was used to test the effects of GBE on T cell phenotypes and cytokine production. Although GBE did not improve the cardiac functional parameters, it significantly attenuated oxidative stress in post-MI rat hearts. GBE treatment also resulted in lower than control levels of TNF-α in post-MI rat hearts indicating a strong neutralizing effect of GBE on this cytokine. However, there was no effect of GBE on the proportion of different T cell subsets or ex-vivo cytokine production. Taken together, the present study demonstrates GBE reduces oxidative stress, however no effect on cardiac structure and function in post-MI rats. Moreover, reduction of TNF-α levels below baseline raises concern regarding its use as prophylactic or preventive adjunct therapy in cardiovascular disease.Entities:
Keywords: Panax quinquefolius; ginseng berry; myocardial infarction; phenolic compounds
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30813472 PMCID: PMC6412860 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20040983
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Proximate analysis of ginseng berry extract.
| Constituent | Value (%) |
|---|---|
| Moisture | 8.19 |
| Dry matter | 91.81 |
| Crude protein | 8.61 |
| Crude fibre | 1.54 |
| Fat | 0.90 |
| Ash | 12.50 |
| Non-fibre carbohydrates | 68.26 |
| Total digestible nutrients | 69.77 |
Biometrical characteristics of sham and MI animals with and without ginseng berry extract treatment for 8 weeks after coronary artery ligation.
| Parameter | Sham-W | Sham-G | MI-W | MI-G |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight (g) | 573.1 ± 11 | 579.9 ± 21 | 538.4 ± 12 | 549 ± 16 |
| Heart weight (g) | 1.433 ± 0.05 | 1.355 ± 0.05 | 1.458 ± 0.03 | 1.415 ± 0.05 |
| LV weight (g) | 0.70 ± 0.060 | 0.86 ± 0.051 | 0.73 ± 0.03 | 0.82 ± 0.04 |
| % infarct | - | - | 32.37 ± 2.8 | 25.47 ± 2.3 |
| Heart weight/Tibia length (g/cm) | 0.32 ± 0.009 | 0.30 ± 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.0 | 0.31 ± 0.0 |
| LV weight/Tibia length (g/cm) | 0.15 ± 0.013 | 0.19 ± 0.011 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.18 ± 0.01 |
Values presented are mean ± SEM. MI: Myocardial infarction; LV: Left Ventricle; Sham-W: Sham MI treated with distilled water (n = 8); Sham-G: Sham MI treated with GBE 150 mg/kg/body weight/day (n = 8); MI-W: MI treated with distilled water (n = 12–14); MI-G: MI treated with GBE 150 mg/kg/body weight/day (n = 12–14).
Figure 1Effect of ginseng berry extract on ventricular chamber dilatation and remodeling. (A) LV internal diameter at diastole (LVIDd) at 4 weeks; (B) LVIDd at 8 weeks; (C) LV internal diameter at systole (LVIDs) at 4 weeks; (D) LVIDs at 8 weeks; (E) end diastolic volume (EDV) at 4 weeks; (F) EDV at 8 weeks; (G) end systolic volume (ESV) at 4 weeks; (H) ESV at 8 weeks. Values presented are mean ± SEM. Bars with differing letter are significantly different, p < 0.05. Sham-W: Sham MI treated with distilled water (n = 8); Sham-G: Sham MI treated with GBE 150 mg/kg/body weight/day (n = 8); MI-W: MI treated with distilled water (n = 12–14); MI-G: MI treated with GBE 150 mg/kg/body weight/day (n = 12–14).
Figure 2Effect of ginseng berry extract on cardiac hypertrophy. (A) Interventricular septal thickness at diastole (IVSd) at 4 weeks; (B) IVSd at 8 weeks; (C) IVS at systole (IVSs) at 4 weeks; (D) IVSs at 8 weeks; (E) LV posterior wall thickness at diastole (LVPWd) at 4 weeks; (F) LVPWd at 8 weeks; (G) LV posterior wall thickness at systole (LVPWs) at 4 weeks; (H) LVPWs at 8 weeks. Values presented are mean ± SEM. Bars with differing letter are significantly different, p < 0.05. Sham-W: Sham MI treated with distilled water (n = 8); Sham-G: Sham MI treated with GBE 150 mg/kg/body weight/day (n = 8); MI-W: MI treated with distilled water (n = 12–14); MI-G: MI treated with GBE 150 mg/kg/body weight/day (n = 12–14).
Figure 3Effect of ginseng berry extract on systolic heart function. (A) Ejection fraction (EF) at 4 weeks; (B) EF at 8 weeks; (C) fractional shortening (FS) at 4 weeks; (D) FS at 8 weeks. Values presented are mean ± SEM. Bars with differing letter are significantly different, p < 0.05. Sham-W: Sham MI treated with distilled water (n = 8); Sham-G: Sham MI treated with GBE 150 mg/kg/body weight/day (n = 8); MI-W: MI treated with distilled water (n = 12–14); MI-G: MI treated with GBE 150 mg/kg/body weight/day (n = 12–14).
Figure 4Effect of ginseng berry extract on diastolic heart function. (A) Mitral valve E- to A- wave ratio (MV E/A) at 4 weeks; (B) MV E/A at 8 weeks; (C) Isovolumic relaxation time (IVRT) at 4 weeks; (D) IVRT at 8 weeks. Values presented are mean ± SEM. Bars with differing letter are significantly different, p < 0.05. Sham-W: Sham MI treated with distilled water (n = 8); Sham-G: Sham MI treated with GBE 150 mg/kg/body weight/day (n = 8); MI-W: MI treated with distilled water (n = 12–14); MI-G: MI treated with GBE 150 mg/kg/body weight/day (n = 12–14).
Figure 5Effect of ginseng berry extract on oxidative stress and inflammation. (A) Malondialdehyde (MDA); (B) tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). Values presented are mean ± SEM. Bars with differing letter are significantly different, p < 0.05. Sham-W: Sham MI treated with distilled water (n = 8); Sham-G: Sham MI treated with GBE 150 mg/kg/body weight/day (n = 8); MI-W: MI treated with distilled water (n = 12–14); MI-G: MI treated with GBE 150 mg/kg/body weight/day (n = 12–14).
Figure 6Immune cell phenotyping. (A) Definition of viable lymphocytes (Lymph) and non-viable lymphocytes (NV); (B) Definition of CD3 binding after gating on Lymph; (C) Definition of CD4 and CD8 after gating on CD3+ Lymph; (D) Definition of CD25 binding after gating on CD3+ Lymph; (E) Definition of Foxp3 and CD25 after gating on CD3+CD4+CD8− Lymph; (F) Definition of CD25 binding after gating on CD3+CD4−CD8+ Lymph.
T-cell phenotypes in viable and non-viable gates.
| Lymphocyte Phenotypes | Model | Treatment | Interaction | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham | MI | Water | GBE | Sham Water | Sham GBE | MI Water | MI GBE | ||||
|
| |||||||||||
| CD3+ | 30.0 ± 0.9 | 30.0 ± 0.8 | 0.99 | 28.7 ± 0.8 | 31.4 ± 0.9 | 0.03 | 29.2 ± 1.3 ab | 30.9 ± 1.3 ab | 28.2 ± 1.0 b | 31.9 ± 1.1 a | 0.39 |
| 1 CD25+ | 11.5 ± 0.3 | 10.9 ± 0.3 | 0.14 | 11.5 ± 0.3 | 10.9 ± 0.3 | 0.15 | 11.7 ± 0.5 | 11.3 ± 0.4 | 11.3 ± 0.4 | 10.4 ± 0.4 | 0.65 |
| CD4+CD8− | 57.1 ± 1.2 | 57.5 ± 1.0 | 0.80 | 59.5 ± 1.1 | 55.1 ± 1.1 | 0.01 | 58.7 ± 1.7 a | 55.5 ± 1.7 ab | 60.4 ± 1.4 a | 54.6 ± 1.5 b | 0.41 |
| 2 CD25+ | 16.3 ± 0.4 | 15.0 ± 0.4 | 0.04 | 15.9 ± 0.4 | 15.4 ± 0.4 | 0.40 | 16.7 ± 0.6 a | 15.9 ± 0.6 ab | 15.1 ± 0.6 ab | 14.9 ± 0.6 b | 0.54 |
| 3 Foxp3+CD25+ | 12.3 ± 0.4 | 11.1 ± 0.3 | 0.03 | 11.9 ± 0.4 | 11.6 ± 0.4 | 0.60 | 12.8 ± 0.5 a | 11.8 ± 0.5 ab | 10.9 ± 0.5 b | 11.4 ± 0.5 ab | 0.17 |
| CD4−CD8+ | 39.6 ± 1.2 | 39.2 ± 1.0 | 0.80 | 37.0 ± 1.1 | 41.9 ± 1.1 | 0.004 | 37.8 ± 1.7 ab | 41.5 ± 1.7 a | 36.2 ± 1.4 b | 42.3 ± 1.5 a | 0.46 |
| 4 CD25+ | 2.8 ± 0.2 | 2.7 ± 0.1 | 0.66 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | 2.7 ± 0.1 | 0.97 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | 2.9 ± 0.2 | 2.8 ± 0.2 | 2.6 ± 0.2 | 0.30 |
|
| |||||||||||
| CD3+ | 27.2 ± 1.1 | 25.7 ± 0.9 | 0.31 | 23.1 ± 1.0 | 29.9 ± 1.0 | <0.0001 | 22.9 ± 1.5 b | 31.5 ± 1.5 a | 23.2 ± 1.3 b | 28.2 ± 1.4 a | 0.22 |
| 5 CD25+ | 4.9 ± 0.2 | 4.3 ± 0.2 | 0.07 | 4.9 ± 0.2 | 4.3 ± 0.2 | 0.06 | 4.9 ± 0.3 a | 4.8 ± 0.3 a | 4.8 ± 0.3 a | 3.9 ± 0.3 b | 0.17 |
| CD4+CD8− | 75.6 ± 1.3 | 74.4 ± 1.1 | 0.49 | 74.9 ± 1.1 | 75.1 ± 1.2 | 0.94 | 75.7 ± 1.8 | 75.5 ± 1.8 | 74.2 ± 1.5 | 74.7 ± 1.6 | 0.83 |
| 6 CD25+ | 4.9 ± 0.2 | 4.5 ± 0.2 | 0.13 | 4.9 ± 0.2 | 4.4 ± 0.2 | 0.05 | 4.9 ± 0.3 a | 4.9 ± 0.3 a | 5.0 ± 0.2 a | 4.0 ± 0.2 b | 0.08 |
| 7 Foxp3+CD25+ | 3.1 ± 0.1 | 2.7 ± 0.1 | 0.06 | 3.0 ± 0.1 | 2.8 ± 0.1 | 0.18 | 3.2 ± 0.2 a | 3.0 ± 0.2 ab | 2.9 ± 0.2 ab | 2.6 ± 0.2 b | 0.59 |
| CD4−CD8+ | 17.5 ± 0.9 | 18.3 ± 0.8 | 0.56 | 17.3 ± 0.9 | 18.5 ± 0.9 | 0.36 | 16.7 ± 1.3 | 18.4 ± 1.3 | 18.0 ± 1.1 | 18.6 ± 1.2 | 0.66 |
| 8 CD25+ | 2.3 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 0.05 | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.2 | 0.17 | 2.4 ± 0.4 a | 2.2 ± 0.4 ab | 1.9 ± 0.3 ab | 1.2 ± 0.3 b | 0.54 |
Values are means (pg/mL) ± standard error. Means with different superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). GBE: Ginseng berry extract. 1,4: Outliers (value >3× standard deviation of mean) were removed: 2 from MI water and 1 from sham water group; 2,3,7: Outliers (value >3× standard deviation of mean) were removed: 2 from MI water; 5,6,8: Outlier (value >3× standard deviation of mean) were removed: 1 from MI water.
Figure 7Representative flow cytometry plot for non-viable lymphocytes. (A) Definition of CD3 binding after gating on non-viable lymphocytes (NV); (B) Definition of CD4 and CD8 after gating on CD3+ NV; (C) Definition of CD25 binding after gating on CD3+ NV; (D) Definition of Foxp3 and CD25 after gating on CD3+CD4+CD8− NV; (E) Definition of CD25 binding after gating on CD3+CD4−CD8+ NV.
Supernatant cytokine concentrations from concanvalin A-stimulated and unstimulated splenocytes.
| Cytokines | Model | Treatment | Interaction | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham | MI | Water | GBE | Sham Water | Sham GBE | MI Water | MI GBE | ||||
| IL-2 ConA | 2111 ± 181 | 1890 ± 79 | 0.24 | 1910 ± 133 | 2055 ± 114 | 0.47 | 2067 ± 279 | 2155 ± 248 | 1805 ± 125 | 1983 ± 90 | 0.80 |
| 1 IL-2 UNS | 3.4 ± 0.2 | 4.0 ± 0.4 | 0.35 | 3.9 ± 0.4 | 3.4 ± 0.3 | 0.52 | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 3.3 ± 0.2 | 4.2 ± 0.6 | 3.6 ± 0.5 | 0.72 |
| 2 IFNγ ConA | 383.0 ± 75 | 267.0 ± 35 | 0.13 | 312.9 ± 59 | 312.7 ± 47 | 0.79 | 427.8 ± 131 | 343.7 ± 89 | 245.9 ± 49 | 290.1 ± 51 | 0.40 |
| IFNγ UNS | ND | ND | / | ND | ND | / | ND | ND | ND | ND | / |
| 3 IL-10 ConA | 49.2 ± 3.3 | 47.3 ± 3.1 | 0.65 | 48.4 ± 4.1 | 47.9 ± 2.3 | 0.81 | 51.9 ± 5.4 | 46.9 ± 4.2 | 45.9 ± 5.9 | 48.7 ± 2.7 | 0.41 |
| 4 IL-10 UNS | 33.1 ± 4.2 | 29.1 ± 1.8 | 0.49 | 28.3 ± 2.4 | 33.1 ± 3.1 | 0.30 | 29.2 ± 6.8 | 35.4 ± 5.6 | 27.9 ± 2.4 | 30.8 ± 2.8 | 0.70 |
| TNFα ConA | 773.6 ± 57 | 727.4 ± 31 | 0.43 | 779.1 ± 42 | 711.8 ± 41 | 0.30 | 792.9 ± 87 | 754.3 ± 79 | 770.0 ± 42 | 680.9 ± 43 | 0.68 |
| TNFα UNS | ND | ND | / | ND | ND | / | ND | ND | ND | ND | / |
Values are means (pg/mL) ± standard error. Abbreviations: Ginseng berry extract (GBE); Interleukin-2 (IL-2); concanvalin A (ConA); unstimulated (UNS); interferon-γ (IFNγ); interleukin-10 (IL-10); tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα); ND = not detectable. 1 IL-2 UNS 4 samples from sham/water, 2 from sham/GBE, 4 from MI/water, 6 from MI/GBE were below detection limit of 0.46 pg/Ml; 2 IFNγ ConA 1 outlier removed from sham/water group; 3 IL-10 ConA 2 samples from MI/water and 1 from sham/water were below detection limit of 19.4 pg/mL; 4 IL-10 UNS 5 samples from sham/water, 3 from sham/GBE, 5 from MI/water, 6 from MI/GBE were below detection limit of 19.4 pg/mL.