4.7 Article

Extraction, purification and anti-proliferative activities of polysaccharides from Lentinus edodes

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.05.100

关键词

Lentinus edodes polysaccharides; Enzyme-assisted extraction; Anti- proliferative activity

资金

  1. Hebei Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine [2015173]
  2. Hebei Education Department
  3. Science and Technology Research Project of Hebei Higher School [ZD2015131, QN2016106]
  4. Hebei Education Department [QN2015211, Z2012014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the enzyme-assisted extraction of polysaccharides from Lentinus edodes (LEPs) was optimized by response surface methodology, and a preliminary characterization of the extracted LEPs and their anti-proliferative activities were investigated. An orthogonal assay was constructed to determine the optimal amounts of cellulase, papain and pectinase, which were 15, 20 and 15 g/kg, respectively. Then effects of extraction conditions were evaluated and optimized using a Box-Behnken design. The results showed that the highest polysaccharides yield of 15.65% was achieved with an extraction temperature of 54 degrees C, pH 5.0, enzymatic treatment time of 93 min and a liquid/material ratio of 29:1 mL/g, which correlated well with the predicted yield of 15.58%. Subsequently, the crude LEPs were further purified by DEAE-cellulose and Sephadex-100 chromatography to obtain two fractions, which were designated as LEP-1 and LEP-2 and their monosaccharide compositions were characterized by GC. Fourier-transform infrared spectra demonstrated that LEP-1 and LEP-2 were distinct from each other regarding their chemical structures. In addition, the LEPs exhibited inhibition of cell proliferation on HCT-116 and HeLa cells in vitro. In summary, this study provides an efficient enzyme-assisted extraction for LEPs, which can be used as natural antitumor agents in the pharmaceutical and functional food industries. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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