4.6 Article

Phloroglucinol Derivatives from Dryopteris crassirhizoma as Potent Xanthine Oxidase Inhibitors

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26010122

关键词

Dryopteris crassirhizoma; gout; flavaspidic acid; phloroglucinols; traditional medicine; xanthine oxidase

资金

  1. Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine [KSN2012330, KSN 20134273]
  2. Korean government (Ministry of Science and ICT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rhizomes of Dryopteris crassirhizoma contain potent xanthine oxidase inhibitory compounds, with flavaspidic acid AP showing the strongest inhibitory activity. These inhibitors exhibit reversible and noncompetitive inhibition towards xanthine oxidase.
Dryopteris crassirhizoma rhizomes are used as a traditional medicine in Asia. The EtOAc extract of these roots has shown potent xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitory activity. However, the main phloroglucinols in D. crassirhizoma rhizomes have not been analyzed. Thus, we investigated the major constituents responsible for this effect. Bioassay-guided purification isolated four compounds: flavaspidic acid AP (1), flavaspidic acid AB (2), flavaspidic acid PB (3), and flavaspidic acid BB (4). Among these, 1 showed the most potent inhibitory activity with a half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) value of 6.3 mu M, similar to that of allopurinol (IC50 = 5.7 mu M) and better than that of oxypurinol (IC50 = 43.1 mu M), which are XO inhibitors. A comparative activity screen indicated that the acetyl group at C3 and C3 ' is crucial for XO inhibition. For example, 1 showed nearly 4-fold higher efficacy than 4 (IC50 = 20.9 mu M). Representative inhibitors (1-4) in the rhizomes of D. crassirhizoma showed reversible and noncompetitive inhibition toward XO. Furthermore, the potent inhibitors were shown to be present in high quantities in the rhizomes by a UPLC-QTOF-MS analysis. Therefore, the rhizomes of D. crassirhizoma could be used to develop nutraceuticals and medicines for the treatment of gout.

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