4.7 Article

Greater Efficacy of Black Ginseng (CJ EnerG) over Red Ginseng against Lethal Influenza A Virus Infection

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu11081879

关键词

black ginseng; oral administration; influenza A virus; cytokines; antiviral

资金

  1. CJ CheilJedang Corporation
  2. National research foundation of Korea [NRF-2018M3A9H4056536]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2018M3A9H4056536] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Black ginseng (BG, CJ EnerG), prepared via nine repeated cycles of steaming and drying of fresh ginseng, contains more accessible acid polysaccharides and smaller and less polar ginsenosides than red ginseng (RG) processed only once. Because RG exhibits the ability to increase host protection against viral respiratory infections, we investigated the antiviral effects of BG. Mice were orally administered either BG or RG extract at 10 mg/kg bw daily for two weeks. Mice were then infected with a A(H1N1) pdm09 (A/California/04/2009) virus and fed extracts for an additional week. Untreated, infected mice were assigned to either the negative control, without treatments, or the positive control, treated with Tamiflu. Infected mice were monitored for 14 days to determine the survival rate. Lung tissues were evaluated for virus titer and by histological analyses. Cytokine levels were measured in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Mice treated with BG displayed a 100% survival rate against infection, while mice treated with RG had a 50% survival rate. Further, mice treated with BG had fewer accumulated inflammatory cells in bronchioles following viral infection than did mice treated with RG. BG also enhanced the levels of GM-CSF and IL-10 during the early and late stages of infection, respectively, compared to RG. Thus, BG may be useful as an alternative antiviral adjuvant to modulate immune responses to influenza A virus.

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

4.7
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