4.6 Article

In vitro anti-fibrotic activities of herbal compounds and herbs

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 3033-3041

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfp245

关键词

fibroblasts; herbal compounds; renal fibrosis; TGF-beta 1

资金

  1. Kidney Research UK
  2. QX, BMH, PJH and MSJS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. We recently developed high-throughput assays of inflammation-independent anti-fibrotic activities based on TGF-beta 1-induced total collagen accumulation and nodule formation in normal rat kidney fibroblasts. Methods. These assays were applied to examine the anti-fibrotic activities of 21 compounds isolated from plants used in Chinese medicine and methanol extracts of 12 Chinese herbs. Lactate dehydrogenase release assay and cell detachment index were used to monitor cytotoxicity. Changes in fibrogenic molecular markers were observed by reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction and high-content imaging analysis of immunofluorescence. Results. Three flavonoids (quercetin, baicalein and baicalin) and two non-flavonoids (salvianolic acid B and emodin) demonstrated anti-fibrotic activities in both total collagen accumulation and nodule formation assays. The remaining 16 compounds had little anti-fibrotic effect or were cytotoxic. The anti-fibrotic compounds suppressed collagen I expression at both mRNA and protein levels and also variably suppressed alpha-smooth muscle actin expression and bromodeoxyuridine incorporation. Methanol extracts of Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi, Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge and Rheum palmatum L., which are rich sources of baicalein, baicalin, salvianolic acid B and emodin, respectively, also showed in vitro anti-fibrotic activities. Conclusions. Five herbal compounds and three herbal extracts have in vitro anti-fibrotic activities. These data warrant further studies on these anti-fibrotic entities and suggest it a promising strategy to discover new anti-fibrotic drugs by screening more plant materials.

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