4.7 Article

Bidesmoside triterpenoid glycosides from Stauntonia chinensis and relationship to anti-inflammation

期刊

PHYTOCHEMISTRY
卷 70, 期 6, 页码 795-806

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2009.04.005

关键词

Stauntonia chinensis; Lardizabalaceae; Bidesmoside triterpenoid glycosides; Hederagenin; Anti-inflammatory activity; Nitric oxide; TNF-alpha; IL-6; Traditional medicine's prodrug characteristic

资金

  1. Macao Special Administrative Region [020/2007/A2]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20060400785]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ten triterpenoid glycosides, yemuoside YM26-35 (1-9 and 12), were isolated from a traditional Chinese medicine known as Ye Mu Gua (Stauntonia chinensis DC.) along with two known ones, kalopanax saponin C (10) and sieboldianoside A (11). Their structures, as elucidated by spectroscopic analyses and chemical methods, were either penta-saccharidic or hexa-saccharidic bidesmoside triterpenoid glycosides. To help explain the clinical applications of Ye Mu Gua for its anti-inflammatory effects, the inhibitory activity on the release of inflammatory mediators (nitric oxide, TNF-alpha and IL-6) of 1-12 and the related aglycone, hederagenin (13), was evaluated in vitro. It was found that compound 13, but not 1-12, exhibited significant inhibitory activity. The abundant triterpenoid glycosides in Ye Mu Gua might therefore be transformed into their respective aglycones, and thus inhibit the release of inflammatory factors in vivo. This could then account for the clinical value of Ye Mu Gua as regards anti-inflammatory effects. This proposed explanation of how Ye Mu Gua may have an effect is similar to the concept of prodrugs for chemical drugs which could be extended to some traditional medicines. That is, the major components might be biologically active not directly, but via biochemical transformation in vivo. Hence, we propose a traditional medicine's prodrug characteristic concept. (C) 2009 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