| Literature DB >> 31694618 |
Ping Xiao1,2, Hongzhi Huang2, Xiang Li3, Jianwei Chen2, Jin-Ao Duan4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radix isatidis (Isatis indigotica Fort.) is an ancient medicinal herb, which has been applied to the prevention and treatment of influenza virus since ancient times. In recent years, the antioxidant activity of Radix isatidis has been widely concerned by researchers. Our previous studies have shown that Radix isatidis protein (RIP) has good antioxidant activity in vitro. In this study, the composition of the protein was characterized and its antioxidant activity in vivo was evaluated.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant activity; D-galactose; Oxidative damage; Protein composition; Radix isatidis protein
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31694618 PMCID: PMC6836523 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-019-2726-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 1SDS-PAGE profiles of Radix isatidis protein (RIP)
Amino acid composition of RIP and the FAO/WHO suggested requirements (2–5 years old) for the essential amino acids (g/100 g of protein)
| Amino acids | RIP | FAO/WHO suggested requirements (2–5 years old) |
|---|---|---|
| Isoleucine | 7.36 ± 0.51 | 2.8 |
| Leucine | 3.92 ± 0.24 | 6.6 |
| Lysine | 0.46 ± 0.06 | 5.8 |
| Cysteine | 0.01 ± 0.00 | |
| Methionine | 0.11 ± 0.02 | |
| Total sulphur amino acids | 0.12 | 2.5 |
| Tyrosine | 0.85 ± 0.06 | |
| Phenylalanine | 4.08 ± 0.19 | |
| Total aromatic amino acids | 4.93 | 6.3 |
| Threonine | 5.06 ± 0.83 | 3.4 |
| Tryptophan | 2.57 ± 0.44 | 1.1 |
| Valine | 7.62 ± 0.08 | 3.5 |
| Histidine | 1.74 ± 0.04 | 1.9 |
| Total essential amino acids | 33.79 | 32.8 |
| Arginine | 2.95 ± 0.24 | |
| Aspartic acid + asparagine | 9.78 ± 0.65 | |
| Glutamic acid + glutamine | 6.03 ± 0.42 | |
| Serine | 2.36 ± 0.04 | |
| Proline | 8.88 ± 0.49 | |
| Glycine | 6.03 ± 0.70 | |
| Alanine | 2.43 ± 0.21 | |
| Total non-essential amino acids | 38.46 | |
| aE/T,% | 46.77 | |
| Amino acid score | 101.33 | |
| bAntioxidant amino acids | 29.63 |
a The proportion of essential amino acids to the total amino acids
bAntioxidant amino acids, it contains hydrophobic amino acids (valine, alanine, proline and leucine), aromatic amino acids (tyrosine, histidine, and phenylanine), and methionine [19]
Effects of increasing age and different treatments on the body weights (g) of ICR mice
| Group | Week | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
| Normal control | 21.26 ± 1.18 | 26.60 ± 1.57 | 29.50 ± 1.02 | 32.32 ± 1.30 | 36.33 ± 1.25 | 38.34 ± 1.57 | 40.08 ± 1.60 | 42.77 ± 1.15 |
| Model control | 21.49 ± 1.24 | 26.59 ± 2.62 | 29.74 ± 1.28 | 32.40 ± 1.14 | 36.51 ± 1.32 | 35.68 ± 1.65d | 35.04 ± 0.92d | 34.19 ± 1.16d |
| Positive control | 21.38 ± 1.05 | 26.77 ± 1.11 | 28.41 ± 1.67 | 32.33 ± 2.23 | 35.99 ± 2.62 | 36.54 ± 1.59ac | 39.02 ± 2.39b | 41.59 ± 2.92b |
| RIP (25 mg/kg) | 21.26 ± 0.75 | 26.08 ± 1.43 | 27.67 ± 1.24ac | 31.08 ± 1.57 | 33.86 ± 2.47ac | 36.14 ± 2.42ac | 38.00 ± 2.84bc | 40.65 ± 1.25b |
| RIP (50 mg/kg) | 21.56 ± 0.69 | 26.26 ± 0.85 | 30.85 ± 1.27 | 32.18 ± 0.84 | 35.54 ± 2.38 | 37.83 ± 2.89c | 38.63 ± 3.06bc | 40.12 ± 3.01b |
| RIP(100 mg/kg) | 21.12 ± 1.43 | 26.82 ± 1.09 | 31.16 ± 1.24 | 33.73 ± 1.91 | 36.79 ± 1.57 | 37.81 ± 2.47c | 38.27 ± 2.98bc | 41.12 ± 2.16b |
Results are given as mean body weights ± standard deviation (S.D.) (n = 10) and evaluated by one-way ANOVA followed by the Duncan’s multiple-range tests. Differences were considered to be statistically significant if P < 0.05
a P < 0.05, compared with model group
b P < 0.01, compared with model group
c P < 0.05, compared with normal group
d P < 0.01, compared with normal group
Effects of different treatments on the liver, kidney, thymus and spleen indices in aging mice
| Index | Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal control | Model control | Positive control | RIP | RIP | RIP | |
| liver | 42.27 ± 2.72 | 37.93 ± 3.49d | 40.43 ± 2.03ac | 38.59 ± 3.14ac | 40.54 ± 3.40bc | 40.72 ± 2.48bc |
| kidney | 15.59 ± 1.46 | 13.74 ± 1.69d | 14.04 ± 1.41ac | 13.97 ± 1.20c | 14.39 ± 1.88ac | 14.76 ± 1.49ac |
| spleen | 2.45 ± 1.30 | 2.17 ± 0.50c | 2.25 ± 0.75a | 2.29 ± 0.67ac | 2.30 ± 1.01ac | 2.37 ± 0.58a |
| thymus | 2.48 ± 0.64 | 2.02 ± 0.87c | 2.32 ± 0.50a | 2.28 ± 0.34ac | 2.35 ± 0.50a | 2.36 ± 0.34a |
Data were presented as means ± S.D. (n = 10) and evaluated by one-way ANOVA followed by the Duncan’s multiple-range tests
a P < 0.05, compared with model group
b P < 0.01, compared with model group
c P < 0.05, compared with normal group
d P < 0.01, compared with normal group
Fig. 2Histopathological observation of liver in aging mice. Magnification, × 200: a normal control group; (b) model control group; (c) positive control group; (d) RIP of low dose group; (e) RIP of medium dose group; (f) RIP of high dose group
Fig. 3Histopathological observation of kidney in aging mice. Magnification, × 200: a normal control group; (b) model control group; (c) positive control group; (d) RIP of low dose group; (e) RIP of medium dose group; (f) RIP of high dose group
Effects of different treatments on the activities of CAT (U/ml), SOD(U/ml), GSH-Px (U/ml) and levels of MDA (nmol/ml) and TAOC (U/ml) in the serum of aging mice
| Group | MDA | TAOC | CAT | SOD | GSH-Px |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal control | 16.93 ± 0.63 | 8.09 ± 0.42 | 29.01 ± 1.79 | 208.63 ± 27.29 | 1094.56 ± 69.89 |
| Model control | 24.87 ± 0.89d | 6.52 ± 0.48d | 14.00 ± 1.74d | 157.25 ± 34.62d | 784.50 ± 44.70d |
| Positive control | 19.77 ± 0.58ad | 8.24 ± 0.62b | 27.78 ± 1.53b | 207.49 ± 32.40b | 1069.13 ± 24.48b |
| RIP (25 mg/kg) | 24.58 ± 0.39d | 7.15 ± 0.63c | 16.32 ± 2.33ad | 165.53 ± 18.84ad | 874.43 ± 31.82ad |
| RIP (50 mg/kg) | 23.32 ± 0.52ad | 7.65 ± 0.35a | 24.83 ± 2.13bc | 187.74 ± 13.60bd | 950.97 ± 19.70bc |
| RIP (100 mg/kg) | 20.99 ± 0.62bd | 8.58 ± 0.53b | 26.49 ± 1.33bc | 227.47 ± 16.31bc | 1167.18 ± 82.58b |
Data were presented as means ± S.D. (n = 10) and evaluated by one-way ANOVA followed by the Duncan’s multiple-range tests
a P < 0.05, compared with model group
b P < 0.01, compared with model group
c P < 0.05, compared with normal group
d P < 0.01, compared with normal group
Effects of different treatments on the activities of CAT (U/mg protein), SOD (U/mg protein), GSH-Px (U/mg protein) and levels of MDA (nmol/mg protein) and TAOC (U/mg protein) in the livers of aging mice
| Group | MDA | TAOC | CAT | SOD | GSH-Px |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal control | 1.43 ± 0.10 | 1.22 ± 0.15 | 36.18 ± 0.30 | 171.39 ± 16.44 | 399.67 ± 16.92 |
| Model control | 2.78 ± 0.09d | 0.96 ± 0.11c | 28.05 ± 3.28d | 100.89 ± 3.77d | 343.89 ± 19.44a |
| Positive control | 1.34 ± 0.09b | 2.08 ± 0.33bd | 49.67 ± 2.24bd | 116.71 ± 8.18ad | 479.49 ± 23.56bd |
| RIP (25 mg/kg) | 2.22 ± 0.14ad | 1.09 ± 0.14c | 35.51 ± 1.34b | 107.36 ± 10.86d | 345.65 ± 12.35c |
| RIP (50 mg/kg) | 2.01 ± 0.10ab | 1.59 ± 0.17ac | 39.41 ± 1.97bc | 124.62 ± 11.53ad | 378.94 ± 15.05a |
| RIP (100 mg/kg) | 1.80 ± 0.10ac | 1.78 ± 0.22bc | 42.57 ± 2.19bd | 136.92 ± 9.15bd | 414.85 ± 19.95dc |
Data were presented as means ± S.D. (n = 10) and evaluated by one-way ANOVA followed by the Duncan’s multiple-range tests
a P < 0.05, compared with model group
b P < 0.01, compared with model group
c P < 0.05, compared with normal group
d P < 0.01, compared with normal group
Effects of different treatments on the activities of CAT (U/mg protein), SOD (U/mg protein), GSH-Px (U/mg protein) and levels of MDA (nmol/mg protein) and TAOC (U/mg protein) in the kidneys of aging mice
| Group | MDA | TAOC | CAT | SOD | GSH-Px |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal control | 1.46 ± 0.24 | 1.69 ± 0.10 | 32.77 ± 2.44 | 102.35 ± 5.42 | 248.16 ± 8.14 |
| Model control | 2.38 ± 0.26d | 0.88 ± 0.08d | 25.44 ± 1.78d | 74.33 ± 6.96d | 174.23 ± 7.92d |
| Positive control | 1.17 ± 0.28bc | 1.61 ± 0.12b | 34.99 ± 0.92b | 87.27 ± 8.00ad | 259.39 ± 10.37bc |
| RIP (25 mg/kg) | 1.84 ± 0.38ac | 1.28 ± 0.12ac | 26.36 ± 1.72d | 76.00 ± 9.04d | 186.41 ± 8.45ad |
| RIP (50 mg/kg) | 1.67 ± 0.29a | 1.42 ± 0.16bc | 32.62 ± 1.89a | 92.10 ± 4.59bc | 212.57 ± 6.82ac |
| RIP (100 mg/kg) | 1.30 ± 0.35a | 1.81 ± 0.28b | 43.92 ± 0.87bd | 112.48 ± 6.13bc | 236.78 ± 9.15bc |
Data were presented as means ± S.D. (n = 10) and evaluated by one-way ANOVA followed by the Duncan’s multiple-range tests
a P < 0.05, compared with model group
b P < 0.01, compared with model group
c P < 0.05, compared with normal group
d P < 0.01, compared with normal group
Effects of different treatments on the activities of CAT (U/mg protein), SOD (U/mg protein), GSH-Px (U/mg protein) and levels of MDA (nmol/mg protein) and TAOC (U/mg protein) in the brains of aging mice
| Group | MDA | TAOC | CAT | SOD | GSH-Px |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal control | 1.07 ± 0.07 | 1.01 ± 0.15 | 32.07 ± 2.02 | 258.22 ± 12.68 | 319.32 ± 8.94 |
| Model control | 1.63 ± 0.27d | 0.64 ± 0.09d | 25.75 ± 2.23d | 162.78 ± 23.86d | 228.75 ± 6.95d |
| Positive control | 0.89 ± 0.08bc | 1.27 ± 0.12bc | 49.67 ± 2.24bd | 250.47 ± 11.65b | 354.29 ± 11.28bc |
| RIP (25 mg/kg) | 1.61 ± 0.07 | 0.66 ± 0.04 | 24.27 ± 2.53 | 164.91 ± 17.81 | 224.87 ± 12.62 |
| RIP (50 mg/kg) | 1.58 ± 0.10 | 0.67 ± 0.08 | 25.33 ± 3.19 | 165.98 ± 15.02 | 227.56 ± 14.89 |
| RIP (100 mg/kg) | 1.55 ± 0.10 | 0.71 ± 0.20 | 25.40 ± 2.56 | 165.47 ± 11.65 | 229.36 ± 15.63 |
Data were presented as means ± S.D. (n = 10) and evaluated by one-way ANOVA followed by the Duncan’s multiple-range tests
a P < 0.05, compared with model group
b P < 0.01, compared with model group
c P < 0.05, compared with normal group
d P < 0.01, compared with normal group