4.1 Article

Inhibition of metabolic disorders in vivo and in vitro by main constituent of Coreopsis tinctoria

期刊

CHINESE HERBAL MEDICINES
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 157-168

出版社

ELSEVIER SINGAPORE PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chmed.2018.03.004

关键词

insulin resistance; Krebs cycle; marein; metabolites; metabolomics

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81573576, 81703223]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2017M611127]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the effects of the ethyl acetate extract of Coreopsis tinctoria (EAEC) on insulin resistance (IR) in rats fed a high-fat diet. Methods: Male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were fed a HFD (60% fat) supplemented with EAEC for 8 weeks. The administration of EAEC to the rats with HFD-induced insulin resistance reduced hyperglycemia, plasma levels of insulin, and steatosis in the liver. Metabolomic study was used to analyze the metabolic levels of the high glucose-treated cells, control cells and marein-treated cells. Results: High glucose and high fat conditions caused a significant increase in blood glucose, insulin, serum TC, TG and LDL-C levels, leading to abnormal IR in rats. However, treatment with EAEC protects against HFD-induced IR by improving the fasting serum glucose homeostasis and lipid homeostasis. The high glucose conditions significantly decreased glycogen synthesis and increased PEPCK, G6Pase and Krebs cycle-related enzyme protein levels, leading to an abnormal metabolic state in HepG2 cells. However, treatment with marein improved IR by increasing glucose uptake and glycogen synthesis and by downregulating PEPCK and G6Pase protein levels. The statistical analysis of the HPLC/MS data demonstrated that marein could restore the normal metabolic state. Conclusion: The results revealed that EAEC ameliorates IR in rats, and marein has the potential to improve IR by ameliorating glucose metabolism disorders. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Tianjin Press of Chinese Herbal Medicines.

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

4.1
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