| Literature DB >> 31398803 |
Youn-Hwan Hwang1, Seon-A Jang1, Taesoo Kim1, Hyunil Ha2.
Abstract
In t<span class="Gene">raditional oriental medicine, the fruit of <span class="Species">Forsythia suspensa has been used as a nutritional supplement to alleviate inflammation and treat gastrointestinal diseases. However, there is no information available on its beneficial effects on bone. We investigated the beneficial effects of F. suspensa water extract (WFS) on osteoclast differentiation and bone loss. The microarchitecture of trabecular bone was analyzed by micro-computed tomography. Osteoclast differentiation was evaluated based on tartrate-resistant alkaline phosphatase activity, and bone resorption activity was examined on a bone-like mineral surface. The mechanism of action of WFS was assessed by evaluating the expression and activation of signaling molecules. Phytochemical constituents were identified and quantitated by ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. WFS reduced ovariectomy-induced trabecular bone loss and inhibited receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL)-induced osteoclast formation and resorption activity. WFS suppressed RANKL-induced expression of nuclear factor of activated T cells cytoplasmic 1, a crucial transcription factor for osteoclast differentiation by decreasing c-Fos protein levels and suppressing the activation of p38 and c-Jun-N-terminal kinase. We also identified 12 phytochemicals in WFS including lignans, phenylethanoids, and flavonoids. Collectively, these results suggest that WFS inhibits osteoclast differentiation and can potentially be used to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis.Entities:
Keywords: Forsythia suspensa; osteoclast differentiation; osteoporosis; ovariectomy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31398803 PMCID: PMC6722587 DOI: 10.3390/nu11081831
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Inhibition of bone loss and lipid accumulation by Forsythia suspensa water extract (WFS) in ovariectomized (OVX) mice. (A) Micro-CT analysis of distal femur (scale bar, 0.5 mm) and uterine weights. (B) Bodyweight gain during experimental period, gonadal fat weight, and uterine weight. (C) Histopathological analysis of femur by hematoxylin and eosin staining (scale bar, 250 μm) and the average size of lipid droplets in the bone marrow. Sham, sham-operated/vehicle; OVX, OVX/vehicle; WFS L, OVX/low-dose WFS treatment (200 mg/kg/day); WFS H, OVX/high-dose WFS treatment (500 mg/kg/day). BV/TV, bone volume to tissue volume ratio; Tb.N, trabecular number; Tb.Sp, trabecular separation; Tb.Th, trabecular thickness. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 5). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 vs. OVX only.
Figure 2Inhibitory effects of WFS on RANKL-induced osteoclast differentiation of bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs). (A) Inhibition of osteoclast differentiation by WFS. Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining (left, top), resorption pits (left, bottom), TRAP activity (middle), and resorption area (right). (B) Inhibitory effects of WFS on the expression of c-Fos and NFATc1. BMMs were pretreated with vehicle (distilled water) or WFS (100 μg/mL) for 3 h and then treated with RANKL (100 ng/mL) for the indicated days. The protein and mRNA levels were determined by Western blot and real-time PCR analyses, respectively. (C) Modulatory effects of WFS on RANKL-induced early signaling pathways. BMMs were pretreated with vehicle or WFS (100 μg/mL) for 3 h and then treated with RANKL (100 ng/mL) for the indicated times. Cell lysates were subject to Western blot analysis. Data are representative mean ± SD of three independent experiments. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 vs. control treated with vehicle. p-JNK, phospho-JNK; p-p38, phospho-p38; p-ERK, phospho-ERK; p-p65, phospho-p65; p-IκBα, phospho-IκBα.
Figure 3Ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC–MS/MS) analysis of WFS. (A) Ultraviolet and base peak chromatograms. (B) Extracted ion chromatogram of identified phytochemicals. UV, ultraviolet; Rt, retention time.
Phytochemical constituents of WFS by UHPLC–MS/MS.
| No. | Rt
| Calculated ( | Estimated ( | Adducts | Error | Formula | MS/MS Fragments ( | Identifications | Amounts (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.83 | 461.1665 | 461.1669 | [M − H]− | −1.925 | C20H30O12 | 315.1086, 205.0710, 135.0438 | Forsythoside E | 5.628 |
| 2 | 4.88 | 345.1191 | 345.1192 | [M + HCO2]− | 1.035 | C14H20O7 | 299.1138, 119.0336 | Salidroside | 0.690 |
| 3 | 6.48 | 755.2404 | 755.2402 | [M − H]− | −0.251 | C34H44O19 | 623.1979, 461.1671, 161.0231 | Forsythoside B | 0.301 |
| 4 | 6.73 | 623.1981 | 623.1983 | [M − H]− | −0.913 | C29H36O15 | 623.1979, 461.1671, 179.0339, 161.0231 | Forsythoside A | 62.625 |
| 5 | 5.82 | 727.2455 | 727.2457 | [M + HCO2]− | 0.640 | C32H42O16 | 357.1342, 151.0388 | Pinoresinol diglucoside | 0.089 |
| 6 | 7.51 | 519.1872 | 519.1874 | [M − H]− | −0.231 | C26H32O11 | 357.1342, 151.0388 | Pinoresinol glucoside | 4.773 |
| 7 | 9.32 | 579.2083 | 579.2084 | [M + HCO2]− | −0.768 | C27H34O11 | 371.1501, 356.1261 | Forsythin | 0.875 |
| 8 | 11.03 | 357.1344 | 357.1345 | [M − H]− | −0.860 | C20H22O6 | 357.1343, 313.1441, 221.0814, 137.0595 | Matairesinol | 0.137 |
| 9 | 12.56 | 373.1646 | 373.1649 | [M + H]+ | −0.171 | C21H24O6 | 341.1379, 165.0546, 151.0390 | Phillygenin | 2.268 |
| 10 | 6.51 | 609.1461 | 609.1465 | [M − H]− | −0.524 | C27H30O16 | 301.0346, 300.0275 | Rutin | 1.658 |
| 11 | 9.48 | 303.0499 | 303.0498 | [M + H]+ | 0.387 | C15H10O7 | 303.0499 | Quercetin | 0.005 |
| 12 | 5.16 | 353.0878 | 353.0878 | [M − H]− | −0.445 | C16H18O9 | 191.0553 | Chlorogenic acid | 0.051 |
Rt, retention time; ppm, part per million.