4.6 Article

Upregulation of heme oxygenase-1 by ginsenoside Ro attenuates lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammation in macrophage cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF GINSENG RESEARCH
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 365-370

出版社

KOREAN SOC GINSENG
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgr.2015.03.008

关键词

ginsenoside Ro; heme oxygenase-1; inflammation; lipopolysaccharide; macrophage

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea
  2. Korean Government [NRF-2012R1A1B3003531, NRF-2013R1A1A2065158]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The beneficial effects of ginsenoside species have been well demonstrated in a number of studies. However, the function of ginsenoside Ro (GRo), an oleanane-type saponin, has not been sufficiently investigated. Thus, the aim of the present study was to investigate the anti-inflammatory effects of GRo in vitro using the Raw 264.7 mouse macrophage cell line treated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and to clarify the possible mechanism of GRo involving heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), which itself plays a critical role in self-defense in the presence of inflammatory stress. Methods: Raw 264.7 cells were pretreated with GRo (up to 200 mu M) for 1 h before treatment with 1 mu g/mL LPS, and both cell viability and inflammatory markers involving HO-1 were evaluated. Results: GRo significantly increased cell viability in a dose dependent manner following treatment with LPS, and decreased levels of reactive oxygen species and nitric oxide. GRo decreased inflammatory cytokines such as nitric oxide synthase and cyclooxygenase-2 induced by LPS. Moreover, GRo increased the expression of HO-1 in a dose dependent manner. Cotreatment of GRo with tin protoporphyrin IX, a selective inhibitor of HO-1, not only inhibited upregulation of HO-1 induced by GRo, but also reversed the anti-inflammatory effect of GRo in LPS treated Raw 264.7 cells. Conclusion: GRo induces anti-inflammatory effects following treatment with LPS via upregulation of HO-1. Copyright (C) 2015, The Korean Society of Ginseng, Published by Elsevier. All rights reserved.

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