4.7 Article

Effects of commercial anthocyanin-rich extracts on colonic cancer and nontumorigenic colonic cell growth

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 52, Issue 20, Pages 6122-6128

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf049517a

Keywords

anthocyanins; colon cancer; HT-29 colon cancer cells; NCM460 colon cells; cell growth; chokeberry; billberry; grape

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Commercially prepared grape (Vitis vinifera), bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.), and chokeberry (Aronia meloncarpa E.) anthocyanin-rich extracts (AREs) were investigated for their potential chemopreventive activity against colon cancer. The growth of colon-cancer-derived HT-29 and nontumorigenic colonic NCM460 cells exposed to semipurified AREs (10-75 mug of monomeric anthocyanin/mL) was monitored for up to 72 h using a sulforhodamine B assay. All extracts inhibited the growth of HT-29 cells, with chokeberry ARE being the most potent inhibitor. HT-29 cell growth was inhibited similar to50% after 48 h of exposure to 25 mug/mL chokeberry ARE. Most importantly, the growth of NCM460 cells was not inhibited at lower concentrations of all three AREs, illustrating greater growth inhibition of colon cancer, as compared to nontumorigenic colon cells. Extracts were semipurified and characterized by high pressure liquid chromatography, spectrophotometry, and colorimetry. Grape anthocyanins were the glucosylated derivatives of five different anthocyanidin molecules, with or without p-coumaric acid acylation. Bilberry contained five different anthocyanidins glycosylated with galactose, glucose, and arabinose. Chokeberry anthocyanins were cyanidin derivatives, monoglycosylated mostly with galactose and arabinose. The varying compositions and degrees of growth inhibition suggest that the anthocyanin chemical structure may play an important role in the growth inhibitory activity of commercially available AREs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available