METHODS: Cocoa pod extract (CPE) composition was accomplished using UHPLC. The antioxidant capacity were measured using scavenging assay of 1,2-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), β-carotene bleaching assay (BCB) and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP). Inhibiting effect on skin degradation enzymes was carried out using elastase and collagenase assays. The skin whitening effect of CPE was determined based on mushroom tyrosinase assay and sun screening effect (UV-absorbance at 200-400 nm wavelength).
RESULTS: LC-MS/MS data showed the presence of carboxylic acid, phenolic acid, fatty acid, flavonoids (flavonol and flavones), stilbenoids and terpenoids in CPE. Results for antioxidant activity exhibited that CPE possessed good antioxidant activity, based on the mechanism of the assays compared with ascorbic acid (AA) and standardized pine bark extract (PBE); DPPH: AA > CPE > PBE; FRAP: PBE > CPE > AA; and BCB: BHT > CPE > PBE. Cocoa pod extract showed better action against elastase and collagenase enzymes in comparison with PBE and AA. Higher inhibition towards tyrosinase enzyme was exhibited by CPE than kojic acid and AA, although lower than PBE. CPE induced proliferation when tested on human fibroblast cell at low concentration. CPE also exhibited a potential as UVB sunscreen despite its low performance as a UVA sunscreen agent.
CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, the CPE has high potential as a cosmetic ingredient due to its anti-wrinkle, skin whitening, and sunscreen effects.
OBJECTIVE: The effects of Brequinar Sodium (BQR) and 4SC-101 on lymphoblastoid cell lines were investigated.
METHODS: DHODH expression and cell proliferation inhibition of lymphoblastoid and lymphoma cell lines were analyzed using Western blot analysis and XTT assay, respectively. JC-1 probe and ATP biochemiluminescence kit were used to evaluate the mitochondrial membrane potential and ATP generation in these cell lines. Furthermore, we explored the cell cycle progression using Muse™ Cell Cycle Kit.
RESULTS: Ramos, SUDHL-1 and RPMI-1788 cells are fast-growing cells with equal expression of DHODH enzyme and sensitivity to DHODH inhibitors that showed that the inhibition of DHODH was not cancer-specific. In ATP depletion assay, the non-cancerous RPMI-1788 cells showed only a minor ATP reduction compared to Ramos and SUDHL-1 (cancer) cells. In the mechanistic impact of DHODH inhibitors on non-cancerous vs cancerous cells, the mitochondrial membrane potential assay revealed that significant depolarization and cytochrome c release occurred with DHODH inhibitors treatment in Ramos but not in the RPMI-1788 cells, indicating a different mechanism of proliferation inhibition in normal cells.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study provide evidence that DHODH inhibitors perturb the proliferation of non-cancerous cells via a distinct mechanism compared to cancerous cells. These results may lead to strategies for overcoming the impact on non-cancerous cells during treatment with DHODH inhibitors, leading to a better therapeutic window in patients.