4.5 Article

Isoflavones as Ah Receptor Agonists in Colon-Derived Cell Lines: Structure-Activity Relationships

期刊

CHEMICAL RESEARCH IN TOXICOLOGY
卷 32, 期 11, 页码 2353-2364

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00352

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-AT010282, RO1-CA202697, R35-CA197707, P30-ES029607]
  2. Syd Kyle Chair
  3. Allen Endowed Chair in Nutrition & Chronic Disease Prevention
  4. Texas Agrilife

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many of the protective responses observed for flavonoids in the gastrointestinal track resemble aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR)-mediated effects. Therefore, we examined the structure-activity relationships of isoflavones and isomeric flavone and flavanones as AhR ligands on the basis of their induction of CYP1A1, CYP1B1, and UGT1A1 gene expression in colon cancer Caco2 cells and young adult mouse colonocyte (YAMC) cells. Caco2 cells were significantly more Ah-responsive than YAMC cells, and this was due, in part, to flavonoid-induced cytotoxicity in the latter cell lines. The structure-activity relationships for the flavonoids were complex and both response and cell context specific; however, there was significant variability in the AhR activities of the isomeric substituted isoflavones and flavones. For example, 4',5,7-trihydroxyisoflavone (genistein) was AhR-inactive whereas 4',5,7-trihydroxyflavone (apigenin) induced CYP1A1, CYP1B1, and UGT1A1 in Caco2 cells. In contrast, both 5,7-dihydroxy-4-methoxy substituted isoflavone (biochanin A) and flavone (acacetin) induced all three AhR-responsive genes; 4',5,7-trimethoxyisoflavone was a potent AhR agonist, and the isomeric flavone was AhR-inactive. These results coupled with simulation studies modeling flavonoid interaction within the AhR binding pocket demonstrate that the orientation of the substituted phenyl ring at C-2 (flavones) or C-3 (isoflavones) on the common 4-H-chromen-4-one ring strongly influences the activities of isoflavones and flavones as AhR agonists.

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

4.5
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