4.7 Article

Analysis of lifespan-promoting effect of garlic extract by an integrated metabolo-proteomics approach

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITIONAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 26, 期 8, 页码 808-817

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2015.02.010

关键词

Aging; C. elegans; Garlic extract; Metabolo-proteomics; DAF-16; Mannose-binding lectin; N-Acetylcysteine

资金

  1. Kaohsiung Medical University [KMU-TP103E15]
  2. National Science Council, Taipei, Taiwan [96-2311-B-037-005-MY3, 99-2314-B- 037-042, 99-2745-B-037-005]
  3. Academia Sinica

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The beneficial effects of garlic (Allium sativum) consumption in treating human diseases have been reported worldwide over a long period of human history. The strong antioxidant effect of garlic extract (GE) has also recently been claimed to prevent cancer, thrombus formation, cardiovascular disease and some age-related maladies. Using Caenorhabditis elegans as a model organism, aqueous GE was herein shown to increase the expression of longevity-related FOX() transcription factor daf-16 and extend lifespan by 20%. By employing microarray and proteomics analysis on C elegans treated with aqueous GE, we have systematically mapped 229 genes and 46 proteins with differential expression profiles, which included many metabolic enzymes and yolky egg vitellogenins. To investigate the garlic components functionally involved in longevity, an integrated metabolo-proteomics approach was employed to identify metabolites and protein components associated with treatment of aqueous GE. Among potential lifespan-promoting substances, mannose-binding lectin and N-acetylcysteine were found to increase daf-16 expression. Our study points to the fact that the lifespan-promoting effect of aqueous GE may entail the DAF-16-mediated signaling pathway. The result also highlights the utility of metabolo-proteomics for unraveling the complexity and intricacy involved in the metabolism of natural products in vivo. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. 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