| Title |
Natural Xanthones from Garcinia mangostana with Multifunctional Activities for the Therapy of Alzheimer’s Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurochemical Research, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11064-016-1896-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sheng-nan Wang, Qian Li, Ming-hua Jing, Espargaró Alba, Xiao-hong Yang, Raimon Sabaté, Yi-fan Han, Rong-biao Pi, Wen-jian Lan, Xiao-bo Yang, Jing-kao Chen |
| Abstract |
Natural xanthones have diversity pharmacological activities. Here, a series of xanthones isolated from the pericarps of Garcinia mangostana Linn, named α-Mangostin, 8-Deoxygartanin, Gartanin, Garciniafuran, Garcinone C, Garcinone D, and γ-Mangostin were investigated. Biological screening performed in vitro and in Escherichia coli cells indicated that most of the xanthones exhibited significant inhibition of self-induced β-amyloid (Aβ) aggregation and also β-site amyloid precursor protein-cleaving enzyme 1, acted as potential antioxidants and biometal chelators. Among these compounds, α-Mangostin, Gartanin, Garcinone C and γ-Mangostin showed better antioxidant properties to scavenge Diphenyl-1-(2,4,6-trinitrophenyl) hydrazyl (DPPH) free radical than Trolox, and potent neuroprotective effects against glutamate-induced HT22 cell death partly by up-regulating HO-1 protein level and then scavenging reactive oxygen species. Moreover, Gartanin, Garcinone C and γ-Mangostin could be able to penetrate the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in vitro. These findings suggest that the natural xanthones have multifunctional activities against Alzheimer's disease (AD) and could be promising compounds for the therapy of AD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 7 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,948,417
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Neurochemical Research
#122
of 2,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,714
of 300,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurochemical Research
#3
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,098 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.