| Literature DB >> 35335232 |
Mohd W A Khan1, Ahmed A Otaibi1, Abdulmohsen K D Alsukaibi1, Eida M Alshammari1, Salma A Al-Zahrani1, Subuhi Sherwani2, Wahid A Khan3, Ritika Saha4, Smita R Verma4, Nessar Ahmed5.
Abstract
Garlic has been reported to inhibit protein glycation, a process that underlies several disease processes, including chronic complications of diabetes mellitus. Biophysical, biochemical, and molecular docking investigations were conducted to assess anti-glycating, antioxidant, and protein structural protection activities of garlic. Results from spectral (UV and fluorescence) and circular dichroism (CD) analysis helped ascertain protein conformation and secondary structure protection against glycation to a significant extent. Further, garlic showed heat-induced protein denaturation inhibition activity (52.17%). It also inhibited glycation, advanced glycation end products (AGEs) formation as well as lent human serum albumin (HSA) protein structural stability, as revealed by reduction in browning intensity (65.23%), decrease in protein aggregation index (67.77%), and overall reduction in cross amyloid structure formation (33.26%) compared with positive controls (100%). The significant antioxidant nature of garlic was revealed by FRAP assay (58.23%) and DPPH assay (66.18%). Using molecular docking analysis, some of the important garlic metabolites were investigated for their interactions with the HSA molecule. Molecular docking analysis showed quercetin, a phenolic compound present in garlic, appears to be the most promising inhibitor of glucose interaction with the HSA molecule. Our findings show that garlic can prevent oxidative stress and glycation-induced biomolecular damage and that it can potentially be used in the treatment of several health conditions, including diabetes and other inflammatory diseases.Entities:
Keywords: AGEs; HSA; anti-glycation; antioxidant; garlic; glycation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35335232 PMCID: PMC8950752 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27061868
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Chemical and biological studies of aqueous garlic extract.
| Preliminary Screening | Garlic Extract |
|---|---|
| Weight of dry powder | 50 g |
| Yield | 5.19% |
| Extract | Aqueous |
| Flavonoids | + |
| Polyphenolic compounds | + |
| Total phenolic compounds | 21.45 ± 0.02 mg gallic acid equivalent/g dry weight of extract |
| Total flavonoid content | 16.58 ± 0.03 mg quercetin equivalent/g dry weight of the extract |
+ sign indicates presence of flavonoids and polyphenolic compounds.
Figure 1Percentage reducing power of ascorbic acid (red) and aqueous garlic extract (green). Samples in the histogram showed varying concentrations of ascorbic acid and garlic extract (0–100 µg/mL). The y axis shows the corresponding percentage reducing power. The results are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3). All the results (0.78–100 µg/mL garlic extract) were statistically significant compared with the sample without extract (0 µg/mL). Comparison between two groups was performed based on t test, and significance was defined as p < 0.05.
Figure 2Percentage of free radical reduced vs. aqueous garlic extract concentrations. Various concentrations (0–100 µg/mL) of garlic extracts (green) and 100 µg/mL of ascorbic acid (red). The results are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3). All the results (0.78–100 µg/mL garlic extract) were statistically significant compared with the sample without extract (0 µg/mL). Comparison between two groups was performed based on t test, and significance was defined as p < 0.05.
Figure 3Percentage protection from denaturation induced by heat vs. garlic extract concentration (0–100 µg/mL). The results are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3). All the percentage denaturation inhibition results (0.78–100 µg/mL garlic extract) were statistically significant compared with the sample without extract (0 µg/mL). Comparison between two groups was performed based on t test, and significance was defined as p < 0.05.
Figure 4Percentage browning vs. concentration of garlic extract. Native HSA (N-HSA) and glycated HSA (G-HSA) were incubated for 10 weeks under similar conditions and are considered as negative and positive controls, respectively. G-HSA was co-incubated with garlic extract at various concentrations (0–100 µg/mL) of garlic extract (green). The results are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3). All the percentage browning inhibition results (0.78–100 µg/mL garlic extract) were compared with G-HSA sample. Comparison between two groups was performed based on t test, and significance was defined as * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 5Percentage aggregation vs. concentration of garlic extract. Native HSA and G-HSA were incubated for 10 weeks and served as negative and positive controls, respectively. G-HSA was incubated with various concentrations (0–100 µg/mL) of garlic extract (green). The results are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3). All the percentage inhibition of protein aggregation results (0.78–100 µg/mL garlic extract) were compared with G-HSA sample. Comparison between two groups was performed based on t test, and significance was defined as * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 6Percentage amyloid structure vs. concentration of garlic extract. Native HSA and G-HSA were incubated for 10 weeks as negative and positive controls, respectively. G-HSA was incubated with various concentrations (0–100 µg/mL) of garlic extract (green). The results are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3). All the percentage amyloid structure inhibition results (0.78–100 µg/mL garlic extract) were compared with G-HSA sample. Comparison between two groups was performed based on t test, and significance was defined as * p < 0.05.
Figure 7Absorbance of G-HSA vs. concentration of garlic extract. Native HSA and G-HSA were incubated for 10 weeks as negative and positive controls, respectively. G-HSA was incubated with various concentrations (0–100 µg/mL) of garlic extract (green). The results are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3). Change in absorbance results (0.78–100 µg/mL garlic extract) were compared with G-HSA sample. Comparison between two groups was performed based on t test, and significance was defined as * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 8AGE-specific fluorescence intensity at 450 nm vs. concentration of garlic extract. Native HSA and G-HSA were incubated for 10 weeks as negative and positive controls, respectively. G-HSA was incubated with various concentrations (0–100 µg/mL) of garlic extract (green). The results are presented as means ± SEM (n = 3). Reduction in AGE fluorescence results (0.78–100 µg/mL garlic extract) were compared with G-HSA sample. Comparison between two groups was performed based on t test, and significance was defined as * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Secondary structure composition of N-HSA, G-HSA, and G-HSA incubated with different concentrations of garlic extract (0–100 µg/mL).
| Conformation | N-HSA | G-HSA | G-HSA with Garlic Extracts (μg/mL) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | 0.78 | 1.56 | 3.12 | 6.25 | 12.5 | 25 | 50 | 100 | AG | ||
| α-helix | 42.7 ± 0.6 | 38.2 ± 0.3 | 38.2 ± 0.3 | 38.3 ± 0.3 | 38.4 ± 0.3 | 38.8 ± 0.3 | 39.8 ± 0.3 * | 40.5 ± 0.3 * | 40.9 ± 0.3 ** | 41.5 ± 0.3 *** | 40.8 ± 0.3 ** |
| β-sheet | 26.2 ± 0.5 | 30.1 ± 0.2 | 30.1 ± 0.2 | 30.0 ± 0.2 | 29.9 ± 0.2 | 29.6 ± 0.2 | 28.8 ± 0.2 * | 28.1 ± 0.2 ** | 27.9 ± 0.2 ** | 27.4 ± 0.2 *** | 27.8 ± 0.2 ** |
| β-turn | 18.5 ± 0.2 | 19.4 ± 0.3 | 19.4 ± 0.3 | 19.4 ± 0.3 | 19.4 ± 0.3 | 19.2 ± 0.3 | 19.1 ± 0.3 * | 19.0 ± 0.3 ** | 18.8 ± 0.3 ** | 18.6 ± 0.3 ** | 19.0 ± 0.3 ** |
| Random coil | 12.6 ± 0.5 | 12.3 ± 0.4 | 12.3 ± 0.4 | 12.3 ± 0.4 | 12.3 ± 0.4 | 12.3 ± 0.4 | 12.3 ± 0.4 | 12.4 ± 0.4 * | 12.4 ± 0.4 * | 12.5 ± 0.4 *** | 12.4 ± 0.4 * |
The values are in percentage. Each sample was read in triplicate. Data are mean ± standard deviation. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 vs. control (N-HSA). Values in parentheses represent the percentage change in the secondary structure from N-HSA. Percentage decrease and increase are denoted by “–” and “+” signs. Different GE concentrations were used in μg/mL. The 5 mm of AG was used as negative control. The t test was adopted for the comparison between the groups.
Figure 92D and 3D interaction models of ligands with HSA. Ligands used are (a) glucose, (b) catechin, (c) quercetin, and (d) caffeic acid.
Figure 102D and 3D interaction models of ligands with HSA. Ligands used are (a) gallic acid, (b) dihydroxy benzoic acid, (c) pyrogallol, and (d) m-coumaric acid.
Ligands. Common name refers to the compound name used in the study.
| Ligand/Inhibitor Name | IUPAC Name, | Binding Affinity Kcal/Mol | Number of Hydrogen Bonds | Other Interactions * |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose | (3R,4S,5S,6R)-6-(hydroxymethyl)oxane-2,3,4,5-tetrol | −6.2 | 6 | 1 |
| Catechin | (2S,3R)-2-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-3,4-dihydro-2H-chromene-3,5,7-triol | −6.7 | 1 | 13 |
| Caffeic Acid | (E)-3-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl) prop-2-enoic acid | −6.6 | 3 | 12 |
| Gallic Acid | 3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoic acid | −6.4 | 4 | 10 |
| m-Coumaric Acid | E)-3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)prop-2-enoic acid | −6.3 | 4 | 6 |
| Quercetin | 2-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-3,5,7-trihydroxychromen-4-one | −8.1 | 4 | 17 |
| Pyrogallol | benzene-1,2,3-triol | −5.4 | 3 | 8 |
| Dihydroxybenzoic acid | 2,3-dihydroxybenzoic acid | −6.2 | 3 | 9 |
* Van der Waals, polar, pi–pi interactions, carbon–hydrogen bonds, pi–sigma, pi–alky, etc.