4.4 Article

In vivo growth-inhibition of Sarcoma 180 by an alpha-(1 -> 4)-glucan-beta-(1 -> 6)-glucan-protein complex polysaccharide obtained from Agaricus blazei Murill

期刊

JOURNAL OF NATURAL MEDICINES
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 32-40

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s11418-008-0286-4

关键词

Agaricus blazei; alpha-(1 -> 4)-glucan-beta-(1 -> 6)-glucan-protein complex polysaccharide; Antitumor activity; Sarcoma 180; Toxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Agaricus blazei Murrill, a native mushroom of Brazil, has been widely consumed in different parts of the world due to its anticancer potential. This effect is generally attributed to its polysaccharides; however, the precise structure of these has not been fully characterized. To better understand the relationship between polysaccharide structures and antitumor activity, we investigated the effect of the intraperitoneally (i.p.) or orally (p.o.) administered alpha-(1 -> 4)-glucan-beta-(1 -> 6)-glucan-protein complex polysaccharide from A. blazei alone or in association with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in tumor growth using Sarcoma 180 transplanted mice. Hematological, biochemical, and histopathological analyses were performed in order to evaluate the toxicological aspects of the polysaccharide treatment. The polysaccharide had no direct cytotoxic action on tumor cells in vitro. However, the polysaccharide showed strong in vivo antitumor effect. Thus, the tumor growth-inhibitory effect of the polysaccharide is apparently due to host-mediated mechanisms. The histopathological analysis suggests that the liver and the kidney were not affected by polysaccharide treatment. Neither enzymatic activity of transaminases (AST and ALT) nor urea levels were significantly altered. In hematological analysis, leucopeny was observed after 5-FU treatment, but this effect was prevented when the treatment was associated with the polysaccharide. In conclusion, this polysaccharide probably could explain the ethnopharmacological use of this mushroom in the treatment of cancer.

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

4.4
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