4.6 Article

Chlorogenic Acid and Rutin Play a Major Role in the In Vivo Anti-Diabetic Activity of Morus alba Leaf Extract on Type II Diabetic Rats

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050619

关键词

-

资金

  1. COST Action [CM0804]
  2. Hungarian National Research Fund [OTKA PD75383]
  3. New Hungary Development Plan [TAMOP-4.2.1/B-09/1/KONV-2010-0005]
  4. Baross Gabor Program [MFB-00339/2010]
  5. National Science Council of Taiwan [NSC 982314B037011MY3]
  6. Fundacao para a Ciencia e para a Tecnologia, Portugal [SFRH/BPD/81118/2011]
  7. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/81118/2011] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The leaves of the white mulberry tree (Morus alba L.) are used worldwide in traditional medicine as anti-diabetics. Various constituents of mulberry leaves, such as iminosugars (i.e. 1-deoxynojirimicin), flavonoids and related compounds, polysaccharides, glycopeptides and ecdysteroids, have been reported to exert anti-diabetic activity, but knowledge about their contribution to the overall activity is limited. The objective of the present work was to determine the in vivo antidiabetic activity of an extract of mulberry leaves (MA), and to examine to what extent three major constituents, chlorogenic acid, rutin and isoquercitrin, might contribute to the observed activity. Quantities of the three constituents of interest in the extract were determined by using HPLC-DAD. Activity was determined by using a type II diabetic rat model. After 11 days of per os administration of 250 or 750 mg/kg of MA or the corresponding amounts of each individual compound, a dose dependent decrease of non-fasting blood glucose levels were found for MA, chlorogenic acid and rutin, but not for isoquercitrin. Based on our results, chlorogenic acid and rutin might account for as much as half the observed anti-diabetic activity of MA, hence they can be considered as excellent markers for the quality control of mulberry products.

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