| Literature DB >> 33531194 |
Mochammad Fitri Atho'illah1, Yunita Diyah Safitri2, Farida Dewi Nur'aini1, Sri Widyarti1, Hideo Tsuboi3, Muhaimin Rifa'i4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The high-fat, high-fructose diet (HFFD) provokes overnutrition and inflammation directly, mainly through Toll-like receptors (TLRs). Soybean (Glycine max L.) contains isoflavone that can be transformed into glyceollin by microbial and physical stimuli. Glyceollin possesses many beneficial effects on health.Entities:
Keywords: Glyceollin; High−fat; High−fructose; IL−17; TLR3/TLR4; TNF−α
Year: 2021 PMID: 33531194 PMCID: PMC8039419 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaim.2021.01.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ayurveda Integr Med ISSN: 0975-9476
Fig. 1Experimental design. ESE: elicited soybean extract; Simv = simvastatin. The animal experiment was performed over 24 weeks, where the ESE or simv was treated at the last four weeks. At the end of the 24th week, the animal was sacrificed, and the ESE effects were investigated.
Fig. 2DCs expression on ND or HFFD mice treated/untreated with ESE. (A) Dot plot analysis of CD11c+TLR3+ subsets by flow cytometry. (B) Dot plot analysis of CD11c+TLR4+ subsets by flow cytometry. The value upright indicates the percentages of CD11c+TLR3+/TLR4+ subsets. (C) ESE declines CD11c+TLR3+ expression on splenocytes. (D) ESE declines CD11c+TLR4+ expression on splenocytes. The values in the chart are mean ± SD. Statistical analysis is based on one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc test using Tukey’s HSD test. ∗p < 0.05 displayed a significant difference in ND and treatment groups compared to the HFFD group. ns, not significant (p > 0.05) indicate not significantly differ between the ND group and the ND + ESE−104 group.
Fig. 3NFκB expression on ND or HFFD mice treated/untreated with ESE. (A) Histogram analysis of NFκB+ expression by flow cytometry. (B) ESE suppressed NFκB+ expression on splenocytes. The values in the chart are mean ± SD. Statistical analysis is based on one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc test using Tukey’s HSD test. ∗p < 0.05 displayed a significant difference in treatment groups when compared to the HFFD group. ns, not significant (p > 0.05) indicate not significantly differ between the ND group and the ND + ESE−104 group.
Fig. 4DCs expression on ND or HFFD mice treated/untreated with ESE. (A) Dot plot analysis of CD11c+IL−17+ subsets by flow cytometry. (B) Dot plot analysis of CD11c+TNF−α+ subsets by flow cytometry. The value upright indicates the percentages of CD11c+IL−17+/TNF−α+. (C) ESE declines CD11c+IL−17+ expression on splenocytes. (D) ESE declines CD11c+TNF−α+ expression on splenocytes. The values in the chart are mean ± SD. Statistical analysis is based on one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc test using Tukey’s HSD test. ∗p < 0.05 displayed a significant difference in treatment groups when compared to the HFFD group. ns, not significant (p > 0.05) indicate not significantly differ between the ND group and the ND + ESE−104 group.
Fig. 5Naïve T cells expression on ND or HFFD mice treated/untreated with ESE. (A) Dot plot analysis of CD4+CD62L+ subsets by flow cytometry. (B) Dot plot analysis of CD8+CD62L+ subsets by flow cytometry. The value upright indicates the percentages of CD4+/CD8+CD62L+. (C) ESE restores CD4+CD62L+ expression on splenocytes. (D) ESE restores CD8+CD62L+ expression on splenocytes. The values in the chart are mean ± SD. Statistical analysis is based on one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc test using Tukey’s HSD test. ∗p < 0.05 displayed a significant difference in treatment groups when compared to the HFFD groups. ns, not significant (p > 0.05) indicate not significantly differ between the ND group and the ND + ESE−104 group.
The calculated binding affinity between TLR3/TLR4 complex and ESE selected compounds.
| Receptor | Ligand | Binding affinity (kcal/mol) | Hydrogen Bond Interaction | Van der Waals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TLR3 (1ZIW) | Glyceollin II | −7.3 | Cys 651, Trp 660 | Glu 652, Ile 661, Thr 664, Val 625 |
| Glyceollin I | −6.7 | Thr 650 | Asp 648, Cys 651, Glu 652, Phe 634, Ser 653, Thr 664 | |
| Glyceollin III | −6.7 | Cys 651, Trp 660 | Asp 648, Glu 652, Ile 661, Thr 664, Val 625 | |
| Daidzein | −6.1 | – | Leu 640, Met 642, Phe 647, Ser 653, Thr 650, Thr 664, Val 625, Val 658 | |
| CUCPT4A | −6.1 | Ser 653 | Cys 651, Glu 652, Ile 661, Leu 640, Phe 634, Thr 650, Trp 660 | |
| Genistein | −6.0 | – | Cys 651, Leu 640, Met 642, Phe 647, Ser 653, Thr 664, Val 625, Val 658, | |
| Simvastatin | −5.5 | Ser 653 | Asp 648, Cys 651, Glu 652, Leu 640, Met 642, Phe 634, Thr 650, Thr 664, Val 625, Val 658 | |
| TLR4 (3FXI) | Glyceollin II | −7.9 | Asn 383, Gly 363 | Gly 364, Gly 384, His 431, Lys 435 |
| Glyceollin I | −7.8 | Asn 383, Gly 363, Gly 364 | Arg 382, Gly 384, Lys 435, Phe 342, Phe 408, | |
| Glyceollin III | −7.7 | Gly 363, Gly 364 | Asn 361, Asn 365, Gly 384 | |
| Simvastatin | −7.1 | Asn 383, Gly 363 | Asn 361, Asn 365, Gln 436, Gly 364, Lys 362, Lys 388, Ser 360, Thr 413, Val 411 | |
| Genistein | −7.0 | Gly 363, Gly 364, Lys 435, Thr 413 | Asn 365, Asn 383, Asn 409, Gly 384, His 431, Phe 408, Val 411 | |
| Daidzein | −6.9 | Lys 435 | Asn 365, Asn 409, Gly 384, Gly 410, Lys 388, Phe 387, Phe 408, Ser 386, | |
| TAK-242 | −6.5 | Lys 435, Thr 413 | Asn 365, Gln 436, Gly 363, Gly 410, Lys 362, Lys 388, Phe 387, Ser 386 |
Fig. 6Three-dimensional structure of ESE active compound, simvastatin, and drug inhibitor as control with (A) TLR3 complex, (B) TLR4/MD−2 complex, (C) Molecular docking result with the TLR3 complex portrays that all ligands bind in the same site with control, (D) Visualization of amino acid interaction between the TLR3 complex with glyceollin II, (E) Molecular docking result with TLR4/MD−2 complex portrays all ligands bind in the same site with control, (F) Visualization of amino acid interaction between TLR4/MD−2 complex with glyceollin II. Note: daidzein = yellow−stick orange, genistein = violet−purple stick, glyceollin I = gray 80 stick, glyceollin II = marine blue stick, glyceollin III = olive stick, simvastatin = dark salmon stick, CUCPT4A/TAK−242 = green stick.