4.7 Article

A novel polysaccharide from Sargassum integerrimum induces apoptosis in A549 cells and prevents angiogensis in vitro and in vivo

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep26722

关键词

-

资金

  1. Science and Technology Development Foundation of Qingdao Shi'nan District Science and Technology Bureau [2014-14-006-SW]
  2. Scientific and Technological Innovation Project of Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology [2015ASKJ02]
  3. Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation, China [ZR2014DQ024]
  4. 100-Talent Project of Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many polysaccharides isolated from plants have exhibited promising antitumor activities. The aim of this study is to investigate the antitumor activity of the novel polysaccharide named SPS from Sargassum integerrimum, elucidate the underlying anticancer mechanism in a human lung cancer cell line A549, and evaluate its anti-angiogenic activity both in vitro and in vivo. The results show that SPS significantly reduces A549 cells viability in a dose-and time-dependent manner via MTT method. Flow cytometry analysis indicates that SPS could induce cell apoptosis, the loss of mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP), generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and G2/M phase cell cycle arrest of A549 cells. Up-regulation of the expressions of P53 and Bax, down-regulation of the expression of Bcl-2, and activation of cleaved caspase-3, caspase-9 and PARP are also detected by western blotting after the treatment of SPS. In addition, SPS inhibits the proliferation, migration and cord formation of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) in vitro, and prevents the vascular development of zebrafish embryos in vivo. Altogether, our data prove the anticancer and anti-angiogenesis properties of SPS, and provide further insights into the potential pharmacological application of SPS as antitumor and antiangiogenic agent against lung 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

4.7
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