4.6 Article

Evaluation of structure-activity relationships of ginsenosides against amyloid β induced pathological behaviours in transgenic Caenorhabditis elegans

期刊

RSC ADVANCES
卷 7, 期 64, 页码 40095-40104

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7ra05717b

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81573637, 81421005]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2015ZX09101043]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Amyloid beta (A beta) induced toxicity has been postulated to initiate synaptic loss and subsequent neuronal degeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD). The activities of ginsenosides against AD are widely reported, however, a systematic in vivo study comparing the effects of different ginsenosides on Ab induced toxicity and cognitive impairment has not been described. In addition, the correlation between molecular structures and their anti-A beta activities remains uncovered. In the present study, the in vivo anti-Ab effects of 17 ginsenosides were explored using three transgenic Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) models that exhibits pathological behaviors associated with A beta. We found that (1) ginsenoside Rc, Rd, 20(S)-Rg3, Compound K (CK) and Rg1 could significantly reduce Ab deposits, (2) ginsenoside Rc, Rd, CK, Rk3 and Rg1 inhibit A beta induced paralysis, and (3) ginsenosides 20(S)-Rg3, CK and Rk3 prevented A beta induced defects in associative learning capacity and showed antioxidative activity both in vitro and in vivo. The structure-activity relationships of 17 ginsenosides were investigated by comparing their anti-A beta effects in C. elegans models. Results showed that the protopanaxadiol-type has higher activities than the protopanaxatriol-type or oleanane-type; the anti-A beta effects of ginsenosides are inversely related to the sugar numbers. The results of the present study gain insight into the in vivo protective effects of ginsenosides against A beta induced toxicity, and provide useful information for the clinical use of ginsenosides.

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