4.7 Article

Sulfated polysaccharides from Cyclocarya paliurus reduce H2O2-induced oxidative stress in RAW264.7 cells

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2015.06.031

关键词

Sulfated C. paliurus polysaccharide; Antioxidant activity; Oxidative stress

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31471702, 31201297, 31130041, 31201326]
  2. National Key Technology R&D Program of China [2012BAD33B06]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province, China [20152ACB21004]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Food Science and Technology, Nanchang University, China [SKLF-ZZA-201301]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, two sulfated polysaccharides (S-CP1-4 and S-CP1-8) from Cyclocarya paliurus were produced by chlorosulfonic acid-pyridine method. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) was used to develop an oxidative stress model in the mouse macrophage cell line RAW264.7. Effects of the two sulfated polysaccharides on H2O2-induced oxidative stress were investigated. The results showed that S-CP1-8 improved the viability of the H2O2-induced stressed RAW264.7 cells, as well as inhibited the lipid oxidation as determined by the level of malondialdehyde (MDA). Meanwhile, treatment with S-CP1-4 increased superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity in these cells. The sulfated polysaccharides were found to have a better protective effect against H2O2-induced oxidative stress as compared to the native polysaccharide. Scanning electron microscopy also showed a significant change in the surface morphology of sulfated polysaccharides, but the degradation of main chain of polysaccharides was unconspicuous according to the results of monosaccharide composition. In addition, the sulfated polysaccharides had noticeable DPPH radical scavenging activity. In summary, our results demonstrated that H2O2 was able to induce oxidative stress in RAW264.7 cells, and sulfated group might play an important role in resistance to H2O2-induced oxidative damage. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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