| Literature DB >> 35720177 |
Xu Yang1, Haiyu Ji2, Yingying Feng2, Juan Yu2, Anjun Liu2.
Abstract
The present study investigated physicochemical properties and antioxidant activities in vivo and in vitro of purified compound polysaccharides (CPs-1) from Chinese herbal medicines, composed of lotus leaf, hawthorn, Fagopyrum tataricum, Lycium barbarum, Semen cassiae, and Poria cocos with the mass ratio of 2 : 4 : 2 : 1 : 1.5 : 1. The HPGPC profile and FT-IR spectra indicated that the average molecular weight of CPs-1 was 38.7 kDa and possessed the α- and β-D-pyranose, respectively. The methylation analysis and NMR spectrum demonstrated that CPs-1 had a →6)-β-D-Glcp-(1→6)-β-D-Glcp(1→ backbone. Furthermore, the antioxidant assays in vitro revealed that CPs-1 displayed high scavenging abilities for DPPH, hydroxyl, and reducing power, as well as ABTS and superoxide scavenging capacity. The antioxidant experiments in vivo revealed that CPs-1 could significantly enhance CAT, SOD, and GSH-Px activities and dramatically reduce MDA levels in liver and serum of high-fat mice. Therefore, CPs-1 could be potentially incorporated into pharmaceutical products or functional foods as a natural antioxidant.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35720177 PMCID: PMC9205717 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9973419
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 7.310
Figure 1Elution profile of the fraction achieved from deionized water in a gel chromatography column (a) and UV spectrum of CPs-1 (b).
Figure 2HPGPC of CPs-1 (a) and IC chromatogram of standard monosaccharides (b) and CPs-1 (c).
Figure 3FT-IR spectrum of CPs-1.
Figure 41H (a) and 13C (b) NMR spectrum of CPs-1.
Figure 5Antioxidant activities of CPs-1 for DPPH scavenging capacity compared to that of VC (a), for ABTS scavenging capacity compared to that of VC (b), for hydroxyl radical scavenging capacity compared to that of VC (c), for superoxide radical scavenging capacity compared to that of VC (d), and for reducing power compared to that of VC (e).
The correlation between antioxidant activity and concentration of CPs.
| Antioxidant arrays | Optimal fitting functions | Determination coefficients ( |
|---|---|---|
| DPPH |
| 0.9369 |
| ABTS |
| 0.9571 |
| Hydroxyl |
| 0.9861 |
| Superoxide-anion |
| 0.9716 |
| Reducing power |
| 0.9923 |
X was the concentration of CPs, and Y was the antioxidant activity corresponding to X.
Quantification of serum level CAT, GSH-Px, MDA, and SOD.
| Groups | CAT contents (U/mL) | GSH-Px contents (U/mL) | MDA contents (nmol/mL) | SOD contents (U/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal control | 13.60 ± 1.01a | 664.23 ± 45.96b | 3.32 ± 0.35a | 100.12 ± 10.47a |
| Model control | 10.80 ± 0.70∗ | 460.86 ± 43.37∗∗ | 5.14 ± 0.78∗ | 59.64 ± 19.68∗ |
| Low dose | 12.36 ± 1.09 | 809.07 ± 107.74b∗ | 4.08 ± 0.91 | 79.53 ± 19.40a |
| Medium dose | 15.32 ± 1.28b | 924.65 ± 58.13b∗∗ | 3.53 ± 0.78a | 142.01 ± 10.88b∗ |
| High dose | 18.05 ± 1.30 b∗∗ | 1037.31 ± 49.51b∗∗ | 3.02 ± 0.85b | 187.46 ± 25.19b∗∗ |
aStatistical significance level: P < 0.05 (vs. the model control group). bStatistical significance level: P < 0.01 (vs. the model control group).∗Statistical significance level: P < 0.05 (vs. normal control group). ∗∗Statistical significance level: P < 0.01 (vs. normal control group).
Quantification of liver level CAT, GSH-Px, MDA, and SOD.
| Groups | CAT contents (U/mgprot) | GSH-Px contents (U/mgprot) | MDA contents (nmol/mgprot) | SOD contents (U/mgprot) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal control | 68.02 ± 5.07b | 832.90 ± 77.41a | 6.80 ± 0.58b | 287.92 ± 23.14a |
| Model control | 54.02 ± 3.48∗∗ | 655.53 ± 36.96∗ | 10.73 ± 1.03∗∗ | 250.16 ± 8.76∗ |
| Low dose | 61.79 ± 5.44 | 925.45 ± 62.27b | 7.70 ± 0.58b | 267.34 ± 8.24 |
| Medium dose | 74.34 ± 4.69b | 1213.37 ± 156.62b∗∗ | 6.85 ± 0.99b | 283.66 ± 14.19a |
| High dose | 79.85 ± 7.13b∗ | 1514.14 ± 94.76b∗∗ | 6.19 ± 0.76b | 316.06 ± 24.73b |
aStatistical significance level: P < 0.05 (vs. the model control group). bStatistical significance level: P < 0.01 (vs. the model control group).∗Statistical significance level: P < 0.05 (vs. normal control group).∗∗Statistical significance level: P < 0.01 (vs. normal control group).