| Literature DB >> 34849108 |
Rong-An Cao1,2, Nan Ma3, Subramanian Palanisamy3,4, Natchanok Talapphet3, JiaMiao Zhang1, ChangYuan Wang1,2, SangGuan You3,4.
Abstract
Non-starch polysaccharides derived from natural resources play a significant role in the field of food science and human health due to their extensive distribution in nature and less toxicity. In this order, the immunostimulatory activity of a non-starch polysaccharide (CQNP) from Chenopodium quinoa was examined before and after deproteination in murine macrophage RAW 264.7 cells. The chemical composition of CQNP and deproteinated-CQNP (D-CQNP) were spectrometrically analysed that revealed the presence of carbohydrate (22.7 ± 0.8% and 39.5 ± 0.8%), protein (41.4 ± 0.5% and 20.8 ± 0.5%) and uronic acid (8.7 ± 0.3% and 6.7 ± 0.2%). The monosaccharide composition results exposed that CQNP possesses a high amount of arabinose (34.5 ± 0.3) followed by galactose (26.5 ± 0.2), glucose (21.9 ± 0.3), rhamnose (7.0 ± 0.1), mannose (6.0 ± 0.1) and xylose (4.2 ± 0.2). However, after deproteination, a difference was found in the order of the monosaccharide components, with galactose (41.1 ± 0.5) as a major unit followed by arabinose (34.7 ± 0.5), rhamnose (10.9 ± 0.2), glucose (6.6 ± 0.2), mannose (3.4 ± 0.2) and xylose (3.2 ± 0.2). Further, D-CQNP potentially stimulate the RAW 264.7 cells through the production of nitric oxide (NO), upregulating inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and various pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). Moreover, stimulation of RAW 264.7 cells by D-CQNP takes place along the NF-κB and the MAPKs signaling pathways through the expression of cluster of differentiation 40 (CD40). This results demonstrate that RAW 264.7 cells are effectively stimulated after removal of the protein content in C. quinoa non-starch polysaccharides, which could be useful for develop a new immunostimulant agent.Entities:
Keywords: Chenopodium quinoa; Deproteination; Glycosidic linkage; Immunostimulation; Non-starch polysaccharide
Year: 2021 PMID: 34849108 PMCID: PMC8620320 DOI: 10.1007/s10924-021-02335-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Polym Environ ISSN: 1566-2543 Impact factor: 4.705
Sequences of the primers used in real-time PCR analysis
| Gene | Sequences of the primers |
|---|---|
| iNOS | 5′-CCCTTCCGAAGTTTCTGGCAGCAGC-3′ (forward) |
| 5′-GGCTGTCAGAGCCTCGTGGCTTTGG-3′ (reverse) | |
| IL-1β | 5′-ATGGCAACTATTCCTGAACTCAACT-3′ (forward) |
| 5′-CAGGACAGGTATAGATTCTTTCCTTT-3′ (reverse) | |
| IL-6 | 5′-TTCC TCTCTGCAAGAGACT-3′ (forward) |
| 5′-TGTATCTCTCTGAAGGACT-3′ (reverse) | |
| IL-10 | 5′-TACCTGGTAGAAGTGATGCC-3′ (forward) |
| 5′-CATCATGTATGCTTCTATGC-3′ (reverse) | |
| TNF-α | 5′-ATGAGCACAGAAAGCATGATC-3′ (forward) |
| 5′-TACAGGCTTGTCACTCGAATT-3′ (reverse) | |
| β-Actin | 5′-TGGAATCCTGTGGCATCCATGAAAC-3′ (forward) |
| 5′-TAAAACGCAGCTCAGTAACAGTCCG-3′ (reverse) |
Total yield, chemical composition, and monosaccharide content and molecular weight analysis of CQNP and D-CQNP obtained from Chenopodium quinoa
| Sample | ||
|---|---|---|
| CQNP | D-CQNP | |
| Chemical composition (%) | ||
| Yield (%) | 1.7 | 20.4 |
| Carbohydrate | 22.7 ± 0.8 | 39.5 ± 0.8 |
| Protein | 41.4 ± 0.5 | 20.8 ± 0.5 |
| Uronic acid | 8.7 ± 0.3 | 6.7 ± 0.2 |
| Monosaccharide content (%) | ||
| Rhamnose | 7.0 ± 0.1 | 10.9 ± 0.2 |
| Arabinose | 34.5 ± 0.3 | 34.7 ± 0.5 |
| Xylose | 4.2 ± 0.2 | 3.2 ± 0.2 |
| Mannose | 6.0 ± 0.1 | 3.4 ± 0.2 |
| Glucose | 21.9 ± 0.3 | 6.6 ± 0.2 |
| Galactose | 26.5 ± 0.2 | 41.1 ± 0.5 |
CQNP non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa, D-CQNP deproteinated non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa, n.d. not detected
Fig. 1Monosaccharide composition analysis of non-starch polysaccharides extracted from Chenopodium quinoa using a gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis. (A) CQNP and (B) D-CQNP. CQNP non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa, D-CQNP deproteinated non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa
Fig. 2Determination of molecular weight of non-starch polysaccharides extracted from Chenopodium quinoa using HPSEC–UV–MALLS–RI spectral analysis. (A) CQNP and (B) D-CQNP. CQNP non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa, D-CQNP deproteinated non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa
Fig. 3The effects of CQNP and D-CQNP treatments on cell proliferation and NO production in RAW 264.7 cells. (A) Cell proliferation and (B) NO production. The presence of letters x, y and z indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the concentration of polysaccharides and a and b designates a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the treatments. NO nitric oxide, RPMI Roswell Park Memorial Institute medium, LPS lipopolysaccharide, CQNP non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa, D-CQNP deproteinated non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa
Fig. 4The expression of inducible nitric oxide synthase and pro-inflammatory cytokines in CQNP and D-CQNP treated RAW 264.7 cells was evaluated through real-time PCR analysis; (A) iNOS expression and (B) expression of TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-10. The alphabets a and b signify significant differences (p < 0.05) between the polysaccharide treatments. LPS-treated cells served as a positive control. iNOS inducible nitric oxide synthase, IL-1β interleukin 1 beta, TNF-α tumor necrosis factor alpha, CQNP non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa, D-CQNP deproteinated non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa, PCR polymerase chain reaction, LPS lipopolysaccharide
Fig. 5The protein expression of p-p38, p-JNK, p-ERK, and p-p65 in CQNP and D-CQNP treated RAW 264.7 cells. In this experiment, α-tubulin served as a control. RPMI represents the cells without treatment of polysaccharides. p-p38 phosphorylated p38, p-JNK phosphorylated c-Jun N-terminal kinase, p-ERK phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase, p-p65 phosphorylated p65, RPMI Roswell Park Memorial Institute medium, LPS lipopolysaccharide, CQNP non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa, D-CQNP deproteinated non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa
Fig. 6Evaluation of CD11b and CD40 expression in CQNP and D-CQNP treated RAW 264.7 cells. Cells treated with LPS and the medium alone (RPMI) served as a positive and negative control. The letters a and b indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the polysaccharide treatments. CD11b cluster of differentiation 11b, CQNP non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa, D-CQNP deproteinated non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa, RPMI Roswell Park Memorial Institute medium, LPS lipopolysaccharide
Fig. 7GC–MS chromatogram represents the glycosidic linkage of D-CQNP. GC–MS gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, D-CQNP deproteinated non-starch polysaccharide of Chenopodium quinoa
Glycosidic linkage analysis of D-CQNP extracted from Chenopodium quinoa
| S. no | Retention time (min) | Methylation product | Linkage type | Peak area (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.34 | 1,4-Di-O-acetyl-2,3,5-tri-O-methyl-Ara | Ara | 13.4 |
| 2 | 6.91 | 1,5-Di-O-acetyl-2,3,4-tri-O-methyl-Rha | Rha-(1 → | 9.5 |
| 3 | 7.83 | 1,3,4-Tri-O-acetyl-2,5-di-O-methyl-Ara | → 3)-Ara | 7.4 |
| 4 | 8.37 | 1,4,5-Tri-O-acetyl-2,3-di-O-methyl-Ara | → 5)-Ara | 7.7 |
| 5 | 9.10 | 1,5-Di-O-acetyl-2,3,4,6-tetra-O-methyl-Glc | Glc | 4.4 |
| 6 | 9.46 | 1,5-Di-O-acetyl-2,3,4,6-tetra-O-methyl-Gal | Gal | 9.7 |
| 7 | 9.96 | 1,2,4,5-Tetra-O-acetyl-3-O-methyl-Ara | → 2,5)-Ara | 1.8 |
| 8 | 10.62 | 1,2,4-Tri-O-acetyl-3,5-di-O-methyl-Ara | → 2)-Ara | 3.1 |
| 9 | 10.75 | 1,4,5-Tri-O-acetyl-2,3,6-tri-O-methyl-Gal | → 4)-Gal | 1.3 |
| 10 | 10.88 | 1,4,5-Tri-O-acetyl-2,3,6-tri-O-methyl-Glc | → 4)-Glc | 4.4 |
| 11 | 11.03 | 1,3,5-Tri-O-acetyl-2,4,6-tri-O-methyl-Gal | → 3)-Gal | 9.5 |
| 12 | 11.74 | 1,5,6-Tri-O-acetyl-2,3,4-tri-O-methyl-Gal | → 6)-Gal | 10.0 |
| 13 | 13.45 | 1,3,4,5-Tetra-O-acetyl-2,6-di-O-methyl-Gal | → 3,4)-Gal | 17.8 |