4.6 Article

Mutagenicity of Flavonoids Assayed by Bacterial Reverse Mutation (Ames) Test

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 5255-5268

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/molecules17055255

关键词

mutagenicity; Ames test; flavonoids

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mutagenicity of ten flavonoids was assayed by the Ames test, in Salmonella typhimurium strains TA98, TA100 and TA102, with the aim of establishing hydroxylation pattern-mutagenicity relationship profiles. The compounds assessed were: quercetin, kaempferol, luteolin, fisetin, chrysin, galangin, flavone, 3-hydroxyflavone, 5-hydroxyflavone and 7-hydroxyflavone. In the Ames assay, quercetin acted directly and its mutagenicity increased with metabolic activation. In the presence of S9 mix, kaempferol and galangin were mutagenic in the TA98 strain and kaempferol showed signs of mutagenicity in the other strains. The absence of hydroxyl groups, as in flavone, only signs of mutagenicity were shown in strain TA102, after metabolization and, among monohydroxylated flavones (3-hydroxyflavone, 5-hydroxyflavone and 7-hydroxyflavone), the presence of hydroxyl groups only resulted in minor changes. Luteolin and fisetin also showed signs of mutagenicity in strain TA102. Finally, chrysin, which has only two hydroxy groups, at the 5-OH and 7-OH positions, also did not induce mutagenic activity in any of the bacterial strains used, under either activation condition. All the flavonoids were tested at concentrations varying from 2.6 to 30.7 nmol/plate for galangin and 12.1 to 225.0 nmol/plate for other flavonoids. In light of the above, it is necessary to clarify the conditions and the mechanisms that mediate the biological effects of flavonoids before treating them as therapeutical agents, since some compounds can be biotransformed into more genotoxic products; as is the case for galangin, kaempferol and quercetin.

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

4.6
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