4.6 Article

Novel Approach to Identify Potential Bioactive Plant Metabolites: Pharmacological and Metabolomics Analyses of Ethanol and Hot Water Extracts of Several Canadian Medicinal Plants of the Cree of Eeyou Istchee

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135721

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR Team in Aboriginal Antidiabetic Medicines) [CTP-79855]
  2. Office of Biotechnology
  3. Genomics and Population Health of Health Canada [4500252806]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated and compared the antidiabetic potential and molecular mechanisms of 17 Cree plants' ethanol extracts (EE) and hot water extracts (HWE) on glucose homeostasis in vitro and used metabolomics to seek links with the content of specific phytochemicals. Several EE of medical plants stimulated muscle glucose uptake and inhibited hepatic G6Pase activity. Some HWE partially or completely lost these antidiabetic activities in comparison to EE. Only R. groenlandicum retained similar potential between EE and HWE in both assays. In C2C12 muscle cells, EE of R. groenlandicum, A. incana and S. purpurea stimulated glucose uptake by activating AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathway and increasing glucose transporter type 4 (GLUT4) expression. In comparison to EE, HWE of R. groenlandicum exhibited similar activities; HWE of A. incana completely lost its effect on all parameters; interestingly, HWE of S. purpurea activated insulin pathway instead of AMPK pathway to increase glucose uptake. In the liver, for a subset of 5 plants, HWE and EE activated AMPK pathway whereas the EE and HWE of S. purpurea and K. angustifolia also activated insulin pathways. Quercetin-3-O-galactoside and quercetin 3-O-alpha-L-arabinopyranoside, were successfully identified by discriminant analysis as biomarkers of HWE plant extracts that stimulate glucose uptake in vitro. More importantly, the latter compound was not identified by previous bioassay-guided fractionation.

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