Effects of traditionally used anxiolytic botanicals on enzymes of the γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) systemThis article is one of a selection of papers published in this special issue (part 1 of 2) on the Safety and Efficacy of Natural Health Products.

Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology - Tập 85 Số 9 - Trang 933-942 - 2007
Rosalie Awad1,2,3, Dylan Levac1,2,3, P. Cybulska1,2,3, Zul Merali1,2,3, Vance L. Trudeau1,2,3, John T. Arnason1,2,3
1Centre for Advanced Research in Environmental Genomics, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada.
2Institute of Mental Health Research, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada.
3Ottawa-Carleton Institute of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada.

Tóm tắt

In Canada, the use of botanical natural health products (NHPs) for anxiety disorders is on the rise, and a critical evaluation of their safety and efficacy is required. The purpose of this study was to determine whether commercially available botanicals directly affect the primary brain enzymes responsible for γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) metabolism. Anxiolytic plants may interact with either glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) or GABA transaminase (GABA-T) and ultimately influence brain GABA levels and neurotransmission. Two in vitro rat brain homogenate assays were developed to determine the inhibitory concentrations (IC50) of aqueous and ethanolic plant extracts. Approximately 70% of all extracts that were tested showed little or no inhibitory effect (IC50 values greater than 1 mg/mL) and are therefore unlikely to affect GABA metabolism as tested. The aqueous extract of Melissa officinalis (lemon balm) exhibited the greatest inhibition of GABA-T activity (IC50 = 0.35 mg/mL). Extracts from Centella asiatica (gotu kola) and Valeriana officinalis (valerian) stimulated GAD activity by over 40% at a dose of 1 mg/mL. On the other hand, both Matricaria recutita (German chamomile) and Humulus lupulus (hops) showed significant inhibition of GAD activity (0.11–0.65 mg/mL). Several of these species may therefore warrant further pharmacological investigation. The relation between enzyme activity and possible in vivo mode of action is discussed.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1602/neurorx.2.4.554

10.1177/0269881103017002004

10.1078/0944-7113-00374

Blumenthal M., 2005, HerbalGram, 66, 63

10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3

10.1097/00004714-200012000-00015

10.1038/sj.mp.4001362

10.1021/jm010868f

10.1016/j.phymed.2004.07.006

Chatterjee T.K., 1992, Indian J. Exp. Biol., 30, 889

10.1055/s-2001-15450

Choi S.Y., 1998, J. Biochem. Mol. Biol., 31, 233

10.1016/j.jep.2004.02.023

10.1016/0896-6273(91)90077-D

10.1016/j.phymed.2004.11.006

10.1021/np058114h

10.1016/S0367-326X(99)00094-5

10.1016/0378-8741(90)90033-P

10.1185/030079903125002603

Health Canada. 2002. A report on mental illnesses in Canada: Anxiety disorders, Ottawa, ON.

Hubert, J.J., and Carter, E.M. 1990. PROBIT: a program in PASCAL for univariate probit analysis with exact confidence limits for LC50. Statistical Series 1990–222, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON.

10.1111/j.1471-4159.1977.tb10721.x

10.1002/ptr.1787

10.1056/NEJMsa043266

10.1111/j.1471-4159.1993.tb03165.x

10.1054/mehy.1999.0955

10.1002/ptr.1900

10.1016/j.phymed.2006.01.013

10.1055/s-2001-15512

10.1097/00019052-200404000-00005

10.1016/j.phrs.2005.03.003

10.1055/s-2007-971218

10.1016/j.jep.2004.10.023

Santos M.S., 1994, Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. Ther., 327, 220

10.1016/j.cbpb.2006.01.010

10.1016/j.phymed.2005.07.005

10.1111/j.1528-1157.1992.tb02312.x

10.2174/1381612023396708

10.1007/s00213-002-1253-5

10.1016/S0014-2999(02)02037-X

10.1016/j.phymed.2006.01.011

10.1055/s-2001-15465

10.1213/01.ANE.0000096189.70405.A5

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology

Tập 85 Số 9

933-942

Thông tin tác giả