Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-b5k59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T00:45:47.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of phytochemicals on phase II enzyme expression in infant human primary skin fibroblast cells

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2012

Eliz Warwick
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
Aedín Cassidy
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
Bryan Hanley
Affiliation:
Mead Johnson Nutrition, Evansville, IN, USA
Zeina E. Jouni
Affiliation:
Mead Johnson Nutrition, Evansville, IN, USA
Yongping Bao*
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
*
* Corresponding author: Y. Bao, email y.bao@uea.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phase II metabolising enzymes enable the metabolism and excretion of potentially harmful substances in adults, but to date it is unclear whether dietary phytochemicals can induce phase II enzymes differently between adults and infants. We investigated the expression of phase II enzymes in an in vitro model of primary skin fibroblasts at three different developmental stages, 1 month, 2 years and adult, to examine potential differences in age-related phase II enzymes in response to different phytochemicals (5–20 μm) including sulphoraphane, quercetin and catechin. Following phytochemical treatment, a significant increase in mRNA of glutathione S-transferase A1 (GSTA1) and NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1) was observed, with the most marked increases seen in response to sulphoraphane (3–10-fold for GSTA1, P = 0·001, and 6–35-fold for NQO1, P = 0·001–0·017). Catechin also induced 3–5-fold changes in NQO1 transcription, whereas quercetin had less effect on NQO1 mRNA induction in infant cells. Moreover, NQO1 protein levels were significantly increased in 2-year-old and adult cell models in response to sulphoraphane treatment. These results suggest that metabolic plasticity and response to xenobiotics may be different in infants and adults; and therefore the inclusion of phytochemicals in the infant diet may modulate their induction of phase II metabolism, thereby providing increased protection from potentially harmful xenobiotics in later life.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012
Figure 0

Table 1 Reference and target primer probe sequences

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Cell viability in (a) 1-month-old, (b) 2-year-old and (c) adult cell models following phytochemical treatments. Following treatment with sulphoraphane () significant loss of cell viability was observed in the 2-year-old cell model compared to control cells. No other significant changes in cell viability were observed in response to treatment with catechin () or quercetin (). Values are means (percentage of control) of at least three individual experiments, with their standard errors represented by vertical bars. *Mean values indicate significantly decreased cell viability when compared with control (P < 0·05; one-way ANOVA and post hoc Dunnett's t test).

Figure 2

Fig. 2 Expression of mRNA in response to phytochemical treatment. Treatment with (a) quercetin: the adult cell model demonstrated a significant dose-dependent increase in both glutathione S-transferases (GST) and UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGT) mRNA expression (P = 0·001 and 0·006, respectively). Expression of GST and NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1) mRNA was significantly increased within the 1-month-old (■) cell model but not the 2-year-old () cell model. Following (b) catechin treatment, the infant cell models demonstrated significant increases in GST and NQO1 mRNA (P = 0·019). (c) Sulphoraphane treatment: in the adult (□) cell line, a significant increase in GST, UGT and NQO1 mRNA was observed (P = 0·022), in addition to significant increases in GST and NQO1 in the infant cell models (P < 0·05). Values are means of at least three individual experiments, and normalised against control, with their standard errors represented by vertical bars. Mean values indicate significantly increased expression relative to control: *P < 0·05, **P < 0·01; one-way ANOVA and post hoc Dunnett's t test.

Figure 3

Fig. 3 Effect of phytochemical treatment on phase II enzyme protein expression. Immunoblotting for effect of (a) 24 h phytochemical treatment (control, 5, 10 and 20 μm as indicated) and protein expression of phase II enzymes in the 1-month-old cell model. No significant effects of phytochemicals were observed in this cell model, immunoblotting for effect of (b) 24 h phytochemical treatment and protein expression of phase II enzymes in the 2-year-old cell model. Here, higher concentrations of catechin and sulphoraphane induce significant increases in protein expression (*P < 0·01), immunoblotting for effect of (c) 24 h phytochemical and protein expression of phase II enzymes in the adult cell model. Protein expression was significantly increased in response to sulphoraphane treatment alone (*P = 0·034). All membranes were stripped and re-probed for anti-β-actin antibody to ensure equal loading. Experiments were repeated at least three times and the results are expressed as the ratio of protein of interest relative to the expression of β-actin. , Glutathione S-transferases (GST); UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGT); , NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1).