4.6 Article

A comparison of antioxidant activity of Korean White and Red Ginsengs on H2O2-induced oxidative stress in HepG2 hepatoma cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF GINSENG RESEARCH
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 442-450

出版社

KOREAN SOC GINSENG
DOI: 10.5142/jgr.2013.37.442

关键词

Panax ginseng; Oxidative stress; HepG2 hepatoma cell; Antioxidant enzyme

资金

  1. National Institute of Horticultural & Herbal Science, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea [PJ009385012013]
  2. Rural Development Administration (RDA), Republic of Korea [PJ009385012013] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to determine and compare the preventive effect of Korean White Ginseng and Red Ginseng on oxidative stress in H2O2-treated HepG2 cells. The roots of ginseng were extracted with 70% methanol and partitioned with butanol to obtain saponin fractions, which have been known as bioactive constituents of ginseng. 2',7'-Dichlorofluorescein diacetate (DCF-DA) assay and malondialdehyde (MDA) content were measured for evaluating intracellular reactive oxygen species EROS) generation. Also, mRNA expressions and activities of antioxidant enzymes were analyzed to determine the antioxidant activity of saponin or non-saponin fractions of ginsengs. According to DCF-DA assay, H2O2-induced MDA release and ROS generation were significantly reduced by treatment with saponin fractions of white and red ginseng roots. Also, saponin fractions increased effectively intracellular antioxidant enzyme activities including catalase, glutathione peroxidase and superoxide dismutase in H2O2-treated HepG2 hepatoma cells. In general, red ginseng was more effective than white ginseng for reducing oxidative stress. These results indicate that administration of red ginseng may certainly contribute relatively stronger than white ginseng to prevent from damaging liver function by oxidative stress.

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

4.6
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