Dihydrobenzofuran Neolignans Isolated from Euonymus alatus Leaves and Twigs Attenuated Inflammatory Responses in the Activated RAW264.7 Macrophage Cells

Na-Hyun Kim; Min Hye Yang; Jeong-Doo Heo; Sang Hyun Sung; Eun Ju Jeong

doi:10.20307/nps.2016.22.1.53

Journal List > Nat Prod Sci > v.22(1) > 1060641

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Yang, Heo, Sung, and Jeong: Dihydrobenzofuran Neolignans Isolated from Euonymus alatus Leaves and Twigs Attenuated Inflammatory Responses in the Activated RAW264.7 Macrophage Cells

Original Article

Natural Product Sciences 2016;22(1):53-59.

Published online: 17 December 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20307/nps.2016.22.1.53

Dihydrobenzofuran Neolignans Isolated from Euonymus alatus Leaves and Twigs Attenuated Inflammatory Responses in the Activated RAW264.7 Macrophage Cells

Na-Hyun Kim¹, Min Hye Yang², Jeong-Doo Heo¹, Sang Hyun Sung³, Eun Ju Jeong^4,^∗

¹Gyeongnam Department of Environment & Toxicology, Korea Institute of Toxicology, 17 Jegok-gil, Munsan-eup, Gyeongnam 660-844, Republic of Korea

²College of Pharmacy, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea

³College of Pharmacy and Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Republic of Korea

⁴ Department of Agronomy & Medicinal Plant Resources, College of Life Sciences and Natural Resources, Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology, Jinju 660-758, Republic of Korea

^∗Author for correspondence Eun Ju Jeong, Department of Agronomy & Medicinal Plant Resources, College of Life Sciences and Natural Resources, Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology, Jinju 660-758, Republic of Korea Tel: +82-55-751-3224; E-mail: ejjeong@gntech.ac.kr

Received 10 August 2015 Revised 16 September 2015 Accepted 16 September 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Anti-inflammatory effects of dihydrobenzofuran neolignans isolated from Euonymus alatus leaves and twigs were evaluated in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated RAW264.7 macrophage cells. Six neolignans, (+)-simulanol (1), (+)-dehydrodiconiferyl alcohol (2), (−)-simulanol (3), (−)-dehydrodiconiferyl alcohol (4), (+)-dihydrodehyrodiconiferyl alcohol (5), threo-buddlenol B (6) effectively inhibited the production of nitric oxide (NO) induced by LPS, and the activity of iNOS. (−)-dehydrodiconiferyl alcohol (4), which showed the most potent inhibitory activity, attenuated the activity of iNOS enzyme and also the expression of iNOS and COX-2 proteins. The subsequent production of proinflammatory cytokines, interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α and prostaglandin E2 were also inhibited by the pretreatment of RAW264.7 cells with (−)-dehydrodiconiferyl alcohol (4). These neolignans are thought to contribute to anti-inflammatory effects of E. alatus, and expected to be potential candidates to prevent/treat inflammation-related diseases.

Keywords: Euonymus alatus, Neolignan, Anti-inflammation, RAW264.7

REFERENCES

(1). Kaplanski G., Marin V., Montero-Julian F., Mantovani A., Farnarier C.Trends Immunol. 2003; 24:25–29.

(2). Adams D. O., Hamilton T. A.Annu. Rev. Immunol. 1984; 2:283–318.

(3). Jeong E. J., Yang H., Kim S. H., Kang S. Y., Sung S. H., Kim Y. C.Food Chem. Toxicol. 2011; 49:1394–1398.

(4). Jeong E. J., Cho J. H., Sung S. H., Kim S. Y., Kim Y. C.Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2011; 15:2283–2286.

(5). Akihisa T., Yamamoto K., Tamura T., Iida T., Nambara T., Chang F. C.Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1992; 40:789–791.

(6). De Fátima Silva G. D., Duarte L. P., Da Silva Paes H. C., De Sousa J. R., Nonato M. C., Portezani P. J., Mascarenhas Y. P. J.Braz. Chem. Soc. 1998; 9:461–464.

(7). Liu C. M., Wang H. X., Wei S. L., Gao K. J.Nat. Prod. 2008; 71:789–792.

(8). Fang J. M., Lee C. K., Cheng Y. S.Phytochemistry. 1992; 31:3659–3661.

(9). Yang Y. P., Cheng M. J., Teng C. M., Chang Y. L., Tsai I. L., Chen I. S.Phytochemistry. 2002; 61:567–572.

(10). Meng J., Jiang T., Bhatti H. A., Siddiqui B. S., Dixon S., Kilburn J. D.Org. Biomol. Chem. 2010; 8:107–113.

(11). Lourith N., Katayama T., Suzuki T. J.Wood Sci. 2005; 51:370–378.

(12). Matsuda S., Kadota S., Tai T., Kikuchi T.Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1984; 32:5066–5069.

(13). Dawson V. L., Brahmbhatt H. P., Mong J. A., Dawson T. M.Neuropharmacology. 1994; 33:1425–1430.

(14). Korhonen R., Lahti A., Kankaanranta H., Moilanen E.Curr. Drug Targets Inflamm. Allergy. 2005; 4:471–479.

(15). Yamashita T., Kawashima S., Ohashi Y., Ozaki M., Ueyama T., Ishida T., Inoue N., Hirata K., Akita H., Yokoyama M.Circulation. 2000; 101:931–937.

(16). Penglis P. S., Cleland L. G., Demasi M., Caughey G. E., James M. J. J.Immunol. 2000; 165:1605–1611.

(17). Nathan C.FASEB J. 1992; 6:3051–3064.

(18). Marletta M. A. J.Biol. Chem. 1993; 268:12231–12234.

(19). Duval D. L., Miller D. R., Collier J., Billings R. E.Mol. Pharmacol. 1996; 50:277–284.

(20). Son H. J., Lee H. J., Yun-Choi H. S., Ryu J. H.Planta Med. 2000; 66:469–471.

(21). Chen T. H., Kao Y. C., Chen B. C., Chen C. H., Chan P., Lee H. M.Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2006; 541:138–146.

(22). Hamasaki Y., Kobayashi I., Zaitu M., Tsuji K., Kita M., Hayasaki R., Muro E., Yamamoto S., Matsuo M., Ichimaru T., Miyazaki S.Planta Med. 1999; 65:222–226.

(23). Wang J. P., Raung S. L., Chen C. C., Kuo J. S., Teng C. M.Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch. Pharmacol. 1993; 348:663–669.

(24). Oh J. H., Kang L. L., Ban J. O., Kim Y. H., Kim K. H., Han S. B., Hong J. T.Chem. Biol. Interact. 2009; 180:506–514.

(25). Choi M. S., Lee S. H., Cho H. S., Kim Y., Yun Y. P., Jung H. Y., Jung J. K., Lee B. C., Pyo H. B., Hong J. T.Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2007; 556:181–189.

(26). Connell L., Mclnnes I. B.Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2006; 20:865–878.

(27). Aggarwal B. B., Natarajan K.Eur. Cytokine Netw. 1996; 7:93–124.

Fig. 1.

Structures of compounds 1–6 isolated from E. alatus leaves and twigs.

Fig. 2.

Inhibitory effects of compounds 1–6 on iNOS enzyme activity in LPS-stimulated RAW264.7 cells. RAW264.7 cells were treated with compounds 1–6 for 1 h before exposure to LPS for 24 h. The fluorescent product was assessed as described in the Materials and Methods. The values shown are the mean ± s.d. of data from three independent experiments. Results differ significantly from LPS alone,^∗P < 0.01,^∗∗P < 0.001.

Fig. 3.

Inhibitory effects of compounds 4 on the expression of iNOS protein in LPS-stimulated RAW264.7 cells. RAW264.7 cells were treated with compound 4 for 1 h, and then exposed to LPS for 24 h. Cell lysates (40 ug protein) were prepared and subjected to Western blot analysis using iNOS-specific antibodies. The relative protein levels were quantified by scanning densi-tometry and normalized to b-tubulin protein. NO production was measured by the Griess reaction and sodium nitrite was used as a standard. The values shown are the mean ± s.d. of data from three independent experiments. Results differ significantly from LPS alone,^∗P < 0.01,^∗∗P < 0.001.

Fig. 4.

Inhibitory effects of compounds 4 on the expression of COX-2 protein in LPS-stimulated RAW264.7 cells. RAW264.7 cells were treated with compound 4 for 1 h, and then exposed to LPS for 24 h. Cell lysates (40 ug protein) were prepared and subjected to Western blot analysis using COX-2-specific antibodies. The relative protein levels were quantified by scanning densito-metry and normalized to b-tubulin protein. The concentrations of PGE2 in the culture medium were determined using ELISA system as described in Materials and Methods. The values shown are the mean ± s.d. of data from three independent experiments. Results differ significantly from LPS alone,^∗P <0.01,^∗∗P <0.001.

Fig. 5.

Inhibitory effects of compounds 4 on the production of proinflammatory cytokines in LPS-stimulated RAW264.7 cells. RAW264.7 cells were treated with compound 4 for 1 h, and then exposed to LPS for 24 h. The concentrations of IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α in the culture medium were determined using ELISA system as described in Materials and Methods. The values shown are the mean ± s.d. of data from three independent experiments. Results differ significantly from LPS alone,^∗P <0.01,^∗∗P <0.001.

Table 1.

Inhibitory effects of compounds 1–6 isolated from E. alatus leaves and twigs on NO production induced by LPS in RAW264.7 cells

Concentration	10 μ M	20 μ M	50 μ M	100 μ M	IC50 μ M
Nitrite (μ M)
Control	5.1 ± ± 0.2
LPS	56.5 ±0.3
1	33.2 ± 1.9^∗	20.2 ± 1.4^∗	18.8 ± 2.7^∗	15.4 ± 0.8^∗∗	11.7 ± 1.2
2	29.3 ± 2.3^∗	23.2 ± 1.6^∗	11.2 ± 1.2^∗∗	66.1 ± 0.1^∗∗	9.3 ± 1.4
3	32.9 ± 1.7^∗	26.4 ± 0.3^∗	17.3 ± 1.5^∗∗	14.9 ± 0.5^∗∗	12.8 ± 2.0
4	26.6 ± 2.0^∗	21.4 ± 1.5^∗	68.7 ± 0.2^∗∗	62.9 ± 0.1^∗∗	8.5 ± 0.8
5	31.7 ± 1.5^∗	24.2 ± 1.2^∗	12.7 ± 0.8^∗∗	66.9 ± 0.2^∗∗	9.8 ± 2.0
6	48.8 ± 2.5	31.9 ± 0.9^∗	29.8 ± 1.3^∗	28.9 ± 1.0^∗	21.3 ± 3.3
L-NAME					48.5 ± 2.3
L-NNA					60.3 ± 1.7
L-NMMA					32.9 ± 2.2

RAW 264.7 cells were pre-treated with each compound for 1 h before exposure to LPS for 24 h. The concentration of nitrite in culture medium was measured as described in the Methods. The values shown are mean ± s.d. of data from three independent experiments. Significant compared with LPS alone

^∗ P < 0.001,

^∗∗ P < 0.0001. L-NAME (L-Nitro-Arginine Methyl Ester, the NOS inhibitor, L-NNA (N^G-Nitro-L-arginine, a well known inhibitor of NOS) and L-NMMA (N^G-methyl-L-arginine acetate, an inhibitor of iNOS-induced nitric oxide production) were used as positive controls.

TOOLS

Similar articles