4.7 Article

Effect of enzyme-assisted extraction on the physicochemical properties and bioactive potential of lotus leaf polysaccharides

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.02.252

关键词

Lotus leaf polysaccharide; Enzyme-assisted extraction; Immunostimulatoly activity

资金

  1. Main Research Program of the Korea Food Research Institute (KFRI) - Ministry of Science and ICT [E0164700]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lotus leaf polysaccharides were extracted by enzyme-assisted extraction using a-amylase (LLEP-A), cellulose (LLEP-C), pectinase (LLEP-P) or protease (LLEP-PR). Their physicochemical properties and immunostimulatory activities were compared with those of hot-water extracted polysaccharides (LLWP). HPAEC-PDA and HPSE-CRI profiles indicated that variations in their molecular weight patterns and chemical compositions. Moreover, their effects on proliferation, phagocytic activity, and cytokine production in macrophages could be ordered as LLEP-P > LLEP-C > LLEP-A > LLWP > LLEP-PR, suggesting that LLEP-P by pectinase-assisted extraction was the most potent enhancer of macrophage activation. LLEP-P was further purified by gel filtration, and the main fraction (LIEP-P-I) was obtained to elucidate the structural and functional properties. LLEP-P-I (14.63 x 10(3) g/mol) mainly consisted of rhamnose, arabinose, galactose, and galacturonic acid at molar percentages of 155:15.8:20.1:32.8.17-IR spectra indicated the predominant acidic and esterified form, suggesting the pecticlike structure. Above all, LLEP-P-I exerted greater stimulation effects on NO and cytokines production and the phagocytic activity in macrophages. Transcriptome analysis also demonstrated that LLEP-P and LLEP-P-I could upregulate macrophage immune response genes, including cytokines, chemokines, and interferon via TLR and JAK-STAT signaling. Thus, these results suggest that pectinase application is most suitable to obtain immunostimulatory polysaccharides from lotus leaves. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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