4.7 Article

Effects on longevity extension and mechanism of action of carnosic acid in Caenorhabditis elegans

期刊

FOOD & FUNCTION
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 1398-1410

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8fo02371a

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31700501]
  2. Free-application Fund of the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China [2016A030313394]
  3. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China [2017A020208042]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The beneficial effects of carnosic acid (CA) on health in terms of antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, anti-cancer and neuroprotective properties have long been recognized. However, the role of CA in aging remains unknown. In the present study, we examined the effects on longevity extension, as well as the mechanism of action, of CA in Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans). The results suggest that CA increased the lifespan of C. elegans. Meanwhile, CA was absorbed by the worms and promoted the healthspan of C. elegans by improving the mobility, reducing the accumulation of age pigment, delaying A-induced and polyQ-dependent paralysis and increasing the resistance to heat and oxidative stress. In terms of the mechanism underlying the longevity extension induced by CA, the beneficial effects were associated with the increased expression of SOD-3 but not with ROS scavenging activity. The CA-mediated longevity extension involved the upregulating of the expression of the skn-1, sek-1, sod-5, hsf-1, hsp-16.1 and hsp-16.2 genes but acted independently of the insulin/insulin-like growth factor signaling (IIS) pathway. Furthermore, CA treatment had no impact on the lifespan of skn-1 and hsf-1 mutants, confirming that mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and heat-shock transcription factor-1 (HSF-1) pathways were associated with the longevity mechanism of CA. These findings contribute to our knowledge of the lifespan extension and underlying mechanism of action of CA in C. elegans.

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