Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:35:18.536Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Novel raspberry triterpenoids with potential anti-cancer effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2016

C. Latimer
Affiliation:
The Northern Ireland Centre for Food and Health (NICHE), University of Ulster, BT521SA, USA
G.J. McDougall
Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute, DD2 5DA, USA
D. Stewart
Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute, DD2 5DA, USA
R. Lawther
Affiliation:
Altnagelvin Area Hospital, BT47 6SB, USA
G. O'Connor
Affiliation:
Altnagelvin Area Hospital, BT47 6SB, USA
I. Rowland
Affiliation:
University of Reading, RC6 6AP, USA
A. Crozier
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA
C.I.R. Gill
Affiliation:
The Northern Ireland Centre for Food and Health (NICHE), University of Ulster, BT521SA, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Abstract
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2016 

The anticancer properties of bioactive phytochemicals within berries are of interest given the inverse correlation of fruit and vegetable consumption with the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC)Reference Johnson 1 . Berries are one of the most commonly consumed sources of polyphenols and these compounds may exert protective effects against initiation of CRC by reducing DNA damageReference Brown 2 . The aim of this study was to assess the bioactivity of raspberry phytochemicals identified in vivo with respect to markers of gut health.

Using non-targeted LC-MSn of ileal fluids from eleven ileostomates who completed a raspberry feeding studyReference McDougall 3 , we identified novel compounds and putatively identified major components as fruit triterpenoid glycosides. The major triterpenoid had an apparent MW of 680 and could be purified from raspberry seeds. The anti-genotoxic activity of this triterpenoid-enriched fraction (TRF) was assessed by COMET assay using HT29 (adenocarcinoma) and CCD841 CoN (normal epithelial) cells. For the in vitro studies both cell lines were incubated for 24 h with 100 nM of either the raspberry TRF or the positive control, a pure synthetic triterpenoid 2-cyano-3,12-dioxoolean-1,9-dien-28-oic acid (CDDO) and then challenged with 75μM hydrogen peroxide. Further, we determined if the treatments modulated gene expression of the Nrf2-ARE pathway involved in oxidative stress cytoprotectionReference Saw and Kong 4 , namely nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2 (Nrf2), NAD(P)H Dehydrogenase, Quinone-1 (NQO1) and Heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1)4. Experiments were carried out as independent triplicates. ANOVA was applied to test for significant differences between means compared to untreated control using Dunnett T test (post hoc).

Treatment of HT29 cells with 100 nM of with either TRF or CDDO significantly decreased DNA damage by ~40–45 % in response to oxidative challenge (p < 0·01). In the normal CCD841 CoN cells, DNA damage was also reduced by ~50–55% for both treatments (p < 0·01). Efficacy between cell lines was not significantly different. With respect to Nrf2-ARE pathway in HT29 & CCD841 CoN cells, CDDO treatment significantly increased expression (p < 0·05) of all the target genes (Nrf2, NQO-1 and HO-1). TRF treatment of HT29 cells significantly increased Nrf2 expression (p < 0·05), but it resulted in a decreased expression of NQO1 and HO-1 (p < 0·05). In CCD841 CoN cells, TRF treatment increased expression of Nrf2 and NQ1 but significantly reduced the expression of HO-1(p < 0·05).

To conclude, we identified a novel raspberry triterpenoid (TRF) from ileal fluid following raspberry consumption; therefore these components survive intestinal digestion and would likely enter the colon in vivo. We have subsequently demonstrated that the colon-available TRF can reduce DNA damage in normal colonocytes, mediated in part by the Nrf2 pathway, at a physiologically relevant concentration.

This work was supported by a grant from the National Processed Raspberry Council.

References

1. Johnson, C.M. et al. (2013) Cancer Causes Control 24, 12071222.Google Scholar
2. Brown, E.M., et al. (2014) J Agric Food Chem 62, 3852–66.Google Scholar
3. McDougall, G.J., et al. (2014) J Agric Food Chem 62, 7631–41.Google Scholar
4. Saw, C.L., Kong, AN (2011) Expert Opin Ther Targets. 15, 281–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar