4.5 Article

Agaritine purified from Agaricus blazei Murrill exerts anti-tumor activity against leukemic cells

期刊

BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-GENERAL SUBJECTS
卷 1800, 期 7, 页码 669-673

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2010.03.016

关键词

Agaricus blazei; Agaritine; Anti-tumor activity; Leukemic cell; Non-carcinogenicity

资金

  1. Fujita Health University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mushrooms of the genus Agaricus are a common folk remedy against carcinoma. The active ingredients, polysaccharides and protein-polysaccharide complexes containing beta-glucan, have been isolated and shown to have indirect tumor-suppressing activity via an immunological activation. Methods: The diffusible fraction of a hot-water extract of Agaricus blazei Murrill (ABM) powder was fractionated by HPLC based on the anti-tumor activity against leukemic cells in vitro. The structure of the anti-tumor substance was determined by NMR and MS analyses. Results: We purified a tumorcidal substance from the diffusible fraction of ABM and identified it as agaritine, beta-N-(gamma-L(+)-glutamyl)-4-(hydroxymethyl) phenylhydrazine, having a molecular mass of 267 Da. This compound inhibited the proliferation of leukemic cell lines such as U937, MOLT4, HL60 and K562 with IC50 values of 2.7, 9.4, 13.0, and 16.0 mu g/mL, respectively, but showed no significant effect on normal lymphatic cells at concentrations up to 40 mu g/mL. Although agaritine has been suspected of having genotoxic or carcinogenic properties, agaritine did not activate the umu gene of Salmonella, which reacts to carcinogens. General significance: The results indicate that agaritine from ABM has direct anti-tumor activity against leukemic tumor cells in vitro. This is in contrast to the carcinogenic activity previously ascribed to this compound. Our results also show that this activity is distinct from that of beta-glucan, which indirectly suppresses proliferation of tumor cells. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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