4.6 Article

Polymyxin B as an inhibitor of lipopolysaccharides contamination of herb crude polysaccharides in mononuclear cells

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF NATURAL MEDICINES
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 487-494

出版社

CHINESE JOURNAL NATURAL MEDICINES
DOI: 10.1016/S1875-5364(17)30074-2

关键词

Lipopolysaccharide; Polymyxin B; Bupleurum chinensis polysaccharides; Mouse peritoneal macrophages; RAW264.7 cells

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81330089, 30925042, 81274165]
  2. State Key Program for New Drugs from the Ministry of Science and Technology, China [2012ZX09301001-003]
  3. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [10XD1405900, 12JC1400800]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) contamination in herbal crude polysaccharides is inevitable. The present study was performed to explore the effect of polymyxin B on abolishing the influence of LPS contamination in mononuclear cells. LPS was pre-treated with polymyxin B sulfate (PB) at different concentrations for 1, 5 or 24 h, and then used to stimulate RAW264.7 and mouse peritoneal macrophages (MPMs). The nitric oxide (NO) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) in cell culture supernatant, as the indications of cell response, were assayed. Bupleurum chinensis polysaccharides (BCPs) with trace amount contamination of LPS was treated with PB. 30 mu g.mL(-1) of PB, treating LPS (10 and 1 000 ng.mL(-1) in stimulating RAW264.7 and MPMs respectively) at 37 degrees C for 24 h, successfully abolished the stimulating effect of LPS on the cells. When the cells were stimulated with LPS, BCPs further promoted NO production. However, pretreated with PB, BCPs showed a suppression of NO production in MPMs and no change in RAW264.7. In the in vitro experiments, LPS contamination in polysaccharide might bring a great interference in assessing the activity of drug. Pretreatment with PB (30 mu g.mL(-1)) at 37 degrees C for 24 h was sufficient to abolish the effects of LPS contamination (10 and 1 000 ng.mL(-1)).

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