4.7 Article

Rapid Screening for α-Glucosidase Inhibitors from Gymnema sylvestre by Affinity Ultrafiltration-HPLC-MS

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2017.00228

关键词

Gymnema sylvestre; gymnemic acid; alpha-glucosidase; UF-HPLC-MS; high-throughput screening

资金

  1. Natural science foundation of China [81673580]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [29Y429291a0129]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gymnema sylvestre R. Br. (Asclepiadaceae) has been known to posses potential anti-diabetic activity, and the gymnemic acids were reported as the main bioactive components in this plant species. However, the specific components responsible for the hypoglycemic effect still remain unknown. In the present study, the in vitro study revealed that the extract of G. sylvestre exhibited significant inhibitory activity against alpha-glucosidase with IC50 at 68.70 +/- 1.22 mu g/mL compared to acarbose (positive control) at 59.03 +/- 2.30 it,g/mL, which further indicated the potential anti-diabetic activity. To this end, a method based on affinity ultrafiltration coupled with liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (UF-HPLC-MS) was established to rapidly screen and identify the alpha-glucosidase inhibitors from G. sylvestre. In this way, 9 compounds with higher enrichment factors (EFs) were identified according to their MS/MS spectra. Finally, the structure-activity relationships revealed that glycosylation could decrease the potential antisweet activity of sapogenins, and other components except gymnemic acids in G. sylvestre could also be good alpha-glucosidase inhibitors due to their synergistic effects. Taken together, the proposed method combing (x-glucosidase and UF-HPLC-MS presents high efficiency for rapidly screening and identifying potential inhibitors of alpha-glucosidase from complex natural products, and could be further explored as a valuable high-throughput screening (HTS) platform in the early anti-diabetic drug discovery stage.

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