| Literature DB >> 35539467 |
Cen Xiang1, Yuou Teng1, Chaoran Yao1, Xuehui Li1, Menglin Cao1, Xuzhe Li1, Guojun Pan1, Kui Lu1, Hervé Galons2, Peng Yu1.
Abstract
Excessive accumulation of free radicals in the body can cause liver damage, aging, cancer, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Anastatin B, a skeletal flavonoid, was reported to have antioxidant and hepatoprotective effects. Anastatin B derivatives, compound 1 and 2, were synthesized by our group previously. In this study, their antioxidant activity and hepatoprotective mechanism were studied using chemical evaluation methods, a cellular model of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)-induced oxidative damage, and a mouse model of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4)-induced liver injury. Results from the chemical evaluation suggested that both compounds had good antioxidant power and radical scavenging ability in vitro. MTT assay showed that both compounds had cytoprotective activity in H2O2-treated PC12 cells. Moreover, their hepatoprotective activities evaluated using a mouse model of CCl4-induced liver injury that compared with the model group, pretreatment with compound 1 and 2 significantly decreased alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels; reduced the liver tissue damage; and increased glutathione content. However, compound 2 was a more effective hepatoprotectant than compound 1 was. Finally, the amount of TNF-α and cytochrome P450 2E1 (CYP2E1) were significantly downregulated in compound 1 and 2 pretreatment groups. Collectively, our findings demonstrate that both compounds have potential antioxidant activity and hepatoprotective effect in vitro and in vivo. Further chemo-biological study and investigation of the compounds' enzymatic targets are ongoing. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 35539467 PMCID: PMC9080091 DOI: 10.1039/c8ra02523a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 3The in vivo hepatoprotectives and antioxidant effects of compound 1 and 2 against CCl4-induced liver injury in mice. (A) Preventive effect of compound 1 and 2 against CCl4-induced liver histopathological changes in mice (original magnification of 200×). (B) Effect of compound 1 and 2 on serum enzyme activities of ALT and AST. (C) Effect of compound 1 and 2 on the levels of LDH and hepatic MDA. (D) Effect of compound 1 and 2 on serum enzyme activity of GSH. All data are presented as means ± SD, n = 8. #P < 0.05 compared to control group; ##P < 0.01 compared to control group; *P < 0.05 compared to model group; **P < 0.01 compared to model group. P value < 0.05 was considered as significant.
The in vitro DPPH˙ and ABTS˙+ scavenging activities and FRAP of compound 1 and 2
| Test compound | Scavenging activity (EC50, mM) | Equivalent amount of Vc (mg mmol−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABTS˙+ | DPPH˙ | FRAP | |
| Compound 1 | 2.4 ± 0.16 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 221.56 ± 25.64 |
| Compound 2 | 2.74 ± 0.13 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 193.66 ± 17.96 |
| Vc | 2.4 ± 0.03 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 192.19 ± 12.33 |
Fig. 1The in vitro antioxidant activities of compound 1 and 2 against H2O2-damaged PC12 cells. Cell viability of compound 1 and 2 (A)-treated PC12 cells was evaluated by MTT assay with or without H2O2-damaged (B and C). IC50 was calculated to reflect the cytotoxicity of compound 1 and 2. The DMSO-treated controls were assigned a cell viability value of 100%. Gallic acid was used as a positive control. *P < 0.05 compared to DMSO-treated control cells.
Fig. 2The in vitro antiapoptotic activities of compound 1 and 2 against H2O2-damaged PC12 cells. (A) Phase contrast images of H2O2-damaged PC12 cells after pretreatment with GA, compound 1 or 2 (10 μM) for 0.5 h (B) apoptosis was evaluated by annexin-V and PI staining of H2O2-damaged PC12 cells cultured in the GA, compound 1 or 2 of 10 μM for 0.5 h.
Fig. 4Effect of compound 1 and 2 on TNF-α (A) and CYP2E1 activity (B) in the liver microsomes of mice treated with CCl4. All data are presented as means ± SD, n = 8. #P < 0.05 compared to control group; ##P < 0.01 compared to control group; *P < 0.05 compared to model group; **P < 0.01 compared to model group. P value < 0.05 was considered as significant.