4.4 Article

Differential binding with ERα and ERβ of the phytoestrogen-rich plant Pueraria mirifica

Journal

Publisher

ASSOC BRAS DIVULG CIENTIFICA
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-879X2009007500026

Keywords

YES assay; Estrogen receptor alpha (ER alpha); Estrogen receptor beta (ER beta); Phytoestrogen; Isoflavonoid; Pueraria mirifica

Funding

  1. Center of Excellence on Agricultural Biotechnology
  2. Postgraduate Education and Research Development Office
  3. Commission on Higher Education
  4. Ministry of Education

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Variations in the estrogenic activity of the phytoestrogen-rich plant, Pueraria mirifica, were determined with yeast estrogen screen (YES) consisting of human estrogen receptors (hER) hER alpha and hER beta and human transcriptional intermediary factor 2 (hTIF2) or human steroid receptor coactivator 1 (hSRC1), respectively, together with the beta-galactosidase expression cassette. Relative estrogenic potency was expressed by determining the beta-galactosidase activity (EC50) of the tuber extracts in relation to 17 beta-estradiol. Twenty-four and 22 of the plant tuber ethanolic extracts interacted with hER alpha and hER beta, respectively, with a higher relative estrogenic potency with hER beta than with hER alpha. Antiestrogenic activity of the plant extracts was also determined by incubation of plant extracts with 17 beta-estradiol prior to YES assay. The plant extracts tested exhibited antiestrogenic activity. Both the estrogenic and the antiestrogenic activity of the tuber extracts were metabolically activated with the rat liver S9-fraction prior to the assay indicating the positive influence of liver enzymes. Correlation analysis between estrogenic potency and the five major isoflavonoid contents within the previously HPLC-analyzed tuberous samples namely puerarin, daidzin, genistin, daidzein, and genistein revealed a negative result.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available