| Literature DB >> 35630761 |
Juan Cardozo-Muñoz1, Luis E Cuca-Suárez1, Juliet A Prieto-Rodríguez2, Fabian Lopez-Vallejo1, Oscar J Patiño-Ladino1.
Abstract
Digestive enzymes such α-amylase (AA), α-glucosidase (AG) and pancreatic lipase (PL), play an important role in the metabolism of carbohydrates and lipids, being attractive therapeutic targets for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Garcinia mangostana is an interesting species because there have been identified xanthones with the potential to inhibit these enzymes. In this study, the multitarget inhibitory potential of xanthones from G. mangostana against AA, AG and PL was assessed. The methodology included the isolation and identification of bioactive xanthones, the synthesis of some derivatives and a molecular docking study. The chemical study allowed the isolation of five xanthones (1-5). Six derivatives (6-11) were synthesized from the major compound, highlighting the proposal of a new solvent-free methodology with microwave irradiation for obtaining aromatic compounds with tetrahydropyran cycle. Compounds with multitarget activity correspond to 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9, highlighting 6 with IC50 values of 33.3 µM on AA, 69.2 µM on AG and 164.4 µM on PL. Enzymatic kinetics and molecular docking studies showed that the bioactive xanthones are mainly competitive inhibitors on AA, mixed inhibitors on AG and non-competitive inhibitors on PL. The molecular coupling study established that the presence of methoxy, hydroxyl and carbonyl groups are important in the activity and interaction of polyfunctional xanthones, highlighting their importance depending on the mode of inhibition.Entities:
Keywords: Garcinia mangostana; digestive enzymes; obesity; pancreatic lipase; type 2 diabetes; xanthones; α-amylase; α-glucosidase
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35630761 PMCID: PMC9144329 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27103283
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Determination of enzymatic inhibition against PL, AA and AG of extract and fractions from G. mangostana.
| Pancreatic Lipase | α-Amylase | α-Glucosidase | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | IC50 (ppm) | IC50 (ppm) | IC50 (ppm) |
| EE | 19.6 ± 1.2 a | 718.9 ± 9.2 b | 261.3 ± 21.8 a |
| DCM | 16.5 ± 4.2 a | 141.7 ± 12.3 a | 197.6 ± 1.5 a |
| EtOAc | 59.0 ± 3.9 b | 246.1 ± 18.0 a | >1000 b |
| IPA | >1000 c | 707.4 ± 69.9 b | >1000 b |
| EtOH:H2O | 575.0 ± 96.2 b | ||
| Orlistat | 0.65 ± 0.1 µM | nd | nd |
| Acarbose | nd | 820.0 ± 14.0 µM | 315.2 ± 3.3 µM |
| ≤0.05 | ≤0.05 | ≤0.05 |
These results are expressed as the mean of three replicates (n = 3) ± SD. The p-value listed in the last row refers to all compounds for the respective enzyme in that column. EE: ethanolic extract, DCM: dichloromethane, EtOAc: ethyl acetate, IPA: isopropanol, EtOH:H2O: ethanol:water. nd: not determined. Different letters on the same line indicate p ≤ 0.05 according to the Tukey test.
Figure 1Isolated compounds (1–5) from the pericarp of G. mangostana (Clusiaceae).
Scheme 1Synthesis of derivatives (6–11) from compound 4. Reagents and conditions: (I) CH3I, K2CO3, acetone, 45 °C, 60 h (6, 47%); (II) py-HCl 20%, MW, 2 min by 13 cycles (7, 63%; 8, 23%); (III) H2, Pd/C, MeOH, r.t., 60 h (9, 98%); (IV) 1-bromopentane, K2CO3, DMF, r.t., 24 h (10, 67%); (V) CH3I, Ag2O, K2CO3, acetone, r.t., 2 h (6, 39%; 11, 15%).
Polyfunctional activity of compounds (1–11) against PL, AA and AG.
| Compounds | Pancreatic Lipase | α-Amylase | α-Glucosidase | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 (µM) | Ki (µM) | It | IC50 (µM) | Ki (µM) | It | IC50 (µM) | Ki (µM) | It | |
|
| 138.1 ± 6.8 e | 138.1 | NC | >1000 a | 157.1 ± 2.1 f | 154.0 | UC | ||
|
| 326.3 ± 7.1 d | 326.3 | NC | 165.6 ± 4.1 b | 165.6 | NC | 247.8 ± 4.0 b | 247.8 | M |
|
| 134.8 ± 1.5 e | 129.7 | UC | >1000 a | 123.6 ± 8.2 c | 123.6 | M | ||
|
| 50.6 ± 6.7 b | 50.6 | NC | 317.6 ± 4.3 c | 240.4 | C | 31.6 ± 2.6 d | 31.6 | M |
|
| 67.1 ± 2.8 c | 57.2 | UC | 333.5 ± 4.5 d | 138.6 | C | 84.7 ± 6.7 e | 84.7 | M |
|
| 69.2 ± 4.9 c | 69.2 | M | 164.4 ± 0.9 b | 28.6 | M | 33.3 ± 4.1 d | 0.3 | C |
|
| >1000 a | >1000 a | 37.2 ± 4.1 d | 37.2 | M | ||||
|
| >1000 a | >1000 a | >1000 a | ||||||
|
| 454.6 ± 1.9 e | 405.2 | M | 90.1 ± 6.0 e | 90.1 | C | 34.2 ± 1.8 d | 34.2 | C |
|
| >1000 a | >1000 a | >1000 a | ||||||
|
| 59.42 ± 3.8 bc | 59.4 | M | >1000 a | >1000 a | ||||
| Orlistat® | 0.65 ± 0.1 | 0.2 | II | nd | nd | ||||
| Acarbosa® | nd | 820.0 ± 14.0 | 130.0 | C | 315.2 ± 3.3 | 56.3 | C | ||
| ≤0.05 | ≤0.05 | ≤0.05 | |||||||
The evaluated concentration was between the range of 6.25 µM–1000 µM. These results are expressed as the mean of three replicates (n = 3) ± SD. The p-value listed in the last row refers to all compounds for the respective enzyme in that column; It: Inhibitor type, II: Irreversible Inhibitor, C: Competitive, NC: Non-competitive, UC: Uncompetitive, M: mixed, nd: Not determined. Different letters on the same line indicate p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey test.
Figure 2Molecular docking of compound 4 against PL, AA and AG.
Figure 3Top-scoring binding poses complex PL ((a)—4, (b)—5), AA ((c)—4, (d)—6), AG ((e)—4, (f)—11).