4.7 Article

Yeast α-Glucosidase Inhibition by Isoflavones from Plants of Leguminosae as an in Vitro Alternative to Acarbose

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 58, 期 18, 页码 9988-9993

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf101926j

关键词

Dalbergia odorifera; Pueraria thunbergiana; Leguminosae; yeast alpha-glucosidase; isoflavone

资金

  1. Korea Research Council for Industrial Science & Technology (KOCI)
  2. Korea Forest Service, Korea [S120808L1101104]
  3. Korea Forest Service [S120808L1101104] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the course of searching for new classes of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors originated from natural resources, 11 kinds of isoflavones, i.e., medicarpin (1), formononetin (2), mucronulatol (3), (3R)-calussequinone (5), (3R)-5'-methoxyvestitol (6), tectorigenin (7), biochanin A (8), tuberosin (9), calycosin (10), daidzein (11), and genistein (12), as well as a flavone, liquritigenin (4), were isolated as active principles responsible for the yeast a-glucosidase inhibitory activity from two leguminous plant extracts, i.e., the heartwood extract of Dalbergia odorifera and the roots extract of Pueraria thunbergiana. Each components (1-12) demonstrated a significantly potent inhibition on yeast alpha-glucosidase in a dose dependent manner when the p-nitrophenyl-alpha-D-glucopyranoside was used as a substrate in vitro. The concentration required for 50% enzyme inhibition (IC50) were calculated as 2.93 mM (1), 0.51 mM (2), 3.52 mM (7) 0.35 mM (8), 3.52 mM (9), 0.85 mM (11), and 0.15 mM (12) when that of reference drug acarbose was evaluated as 9.11 mM, in vitro. However, isoflavone glycosides, i.e., puerarin (13), daidzin (14), formononetin-7-O-beta-glucopyranoside (15), and genistin (16), exhibited a relatively poor inhibitory activity on yeast alpha-glucosidase as compared with the corresponding isoflavone (2, 11, 12), respectively

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据