4.7 Article

Scavenging of hydroxyl radical by resveratrol and related natural stilbenes after hydrogen peroxide attack on DNA

期刊

CHEMICO-BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS
卷 206, 期 2, 页码 175-185

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbi.2013.09.013

关键词

Resveratrol; Pterostilbene; DNA protection; Hydrogen peroxide; Hydroxyl radical

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation [0521237]
  2. HHMI Foundation [52006322]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Resveratrol (3,5,4'-trihydroxystilbene) is of interest due to its role in prevention and therapy of degenerative diseases as cancer and aging. However, depending on its concentration and cell type studied, resveratrol activity appears conflicting. It exerts antioxidant action, as a scavenger of free radicals and as promoter of antioxidant enzyme activity, but resveratrol acts also as a pro-oxidant. Here we present experimental and theoretical studies for resveratrol and two methoxy-derivatives found in plants, pterostilbene and 3,5,4'-trimethoxystilbene. We show that both methoxy-derivatives induce less DNA damage than resveratrol. The protective effects of the three molecules against oxidative DNA damage induced by hydrogen peroxide treatment were analyzed on mammalian cells in vitro. Our data show for the first time that methoxylated derivatives of resveratrol are very efficient in reducing DNA damage: using the same concentration of the three molecules we obtain a relative reduction of 85.5% (pterostilbene), 43.7% (trimethoxystilbene) and 21.1% (resveratrol). Analysis of the crystal structures of pterostilbene and 3,5,4'-trimethoxystilbene, compared to resveratrol, show fewer intermolecular interactions and a lack of planarity, due to packing forces, which is confirmed by density functional theory (DFT) calculations. We also describe the results of DFT calculations (including water solvent effects) in which the three stilbene species scavenge the hydroxyl radical (associated with the H2O2 insult). (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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