4.7 Article

Neuroprotective biflavonoids of Chamaecyparis obtusa leaves against glutamate-induced oxidative stress in HT22 hippocampal cells

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 397-402

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2013.12.003

关键词

Chamaecyparis obtusa; Biflavonoid; Neuroprotection; Oxidative stress; HT22; ERK

资金

  1. Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea [PJ009804]
  2. Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four biflavonoids (1-4), five flavonoids glycosides (5-9), two catechins (10, 11), two lignans (12-13), neolignan glycoside (14) and phenylpropanoid glycoside (15) were isolated from the leaves of Chamaecyparis obtusa (Cupressaceae). Neuroprotective effects of the isolated compounds were evaluated employing HT22 mouse hippocampal cells, a model system to study glutamate-induced oxidative stress. The glutamate injured HT22 cells were protected significantly by amentoflavone (3), ginkgetin (4) and (-)-epitaxifolin 3-O-beta-D-xylopyranoside (9). The reduced activities of antioxidant enzymes, superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione reductase (GR) in response to high concentration of glutamate were preserved by pre-treatment of 3,4 or 9, while the activities of glutathione peroxidase (Gpx) and catalase (CAT) were little affected. The reduced content of GSH induced by glutamate was also recovered by 3, 4 or 9 in accommodation with the decrease in ROS production. In addition, the phosphorylation of ERK1/2 induced by glutamate insult was clearly prevented by 3, while little changed by 4. Taken together, amentoflavone (3), ginkgetin (4) and (-)-epitaxifolin 3-O-beta-D-xylopyranoside (9) derived from C obtusa could protect HT22 neuronal cells against glutamate-induced oxidative damage through preserving antioxidant enzymes activities and/or inhibiting ERK1/2 activation. (C) 2013 Elsevier 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