4.5 Article

Inhibition of nitric oxide production in LPS-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells by stem bark of Ulmus pumila L.

Journal

SAUDI JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 427-435

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2014.04.003

Keywords

Anti-inflammatory; Antioxidant; Icariside E-4; RAW 264.7 cells; Nitric oxide; Ulmus pumila

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (KIAT) through the Research and Development for Regional Industry [20111028]
  2. Agricultural and Life Sciences Research Institute at Kangwon National University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was designed to isolate and identify a potent inhibitory compound against nitric oxide (NO) production from the stem bark of Ulmus pumila L. Ethyl acetate fraction of hot water extract registered a higher level of total phenolics (756.93 mg GAE/g) and also showed strong DPPH (IC50 at 5.6 mu g/mL) and ABTS (TEAC value 0.9703) radical scavenging activities than other fractions. Crude extract and its fractions significantly decreased nitrite accumulation in LPS-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells indicating that they potentially inhibited the NO production in a concentration dependent manner. Based on higher inhibitory activity, the ethyl acetate fraction was subjected to Sephadex LH-20 column chromatography and yielded seven fractions and all these fractions registered appreciable levels of inhibitory activity on NO production. The most effective fraction F1 was further purified and subjected to H-1, C-13-NMR and mass spectrometry analysis and the compound was identified as icariside E4. The results suggest that the U. pumila extract and the isolated compound icariside E4 effectively inhibited the NO production and may be useful in preventing inflammatory diseases mediated by excessive production of NO. (C) 2014 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available