BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2016 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2016 |Article ID 7529521 |

M. R. Ceccarini, S. Vannini, S. Cataldi, M. Moretti, M. Villarini, B. Fioretti, E. Albi, T. Beccari, M. Codini, "In Vitro Protective Effects of Lycium barbarum Berries Cultivated in Umbria (Italy) on Human Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cells", BioMed Research International, vol. 2016, Article ID 7529521, 9 pages, 2016.

In Vitro Protective Effects of Lycium barbarum Berries Cultivated in Umbria (Italy) on Human Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cells

Academic Editor: Davor Zeljezic
Received30 Jun 2016
Revised12 Oct 2016
Accepted16 Oct 2016
Published14 Nov 2016


Lycium barbarum is a famous plant in the traditional Chinese medicine. The plant is known to have health-promoting bioactive components. The properties of Lycium barbarum berries cultivated in Umbria (Italy) and their effect on human hepatocellular carcinoma cells (HepG2) have been investigated in this work. The obtained results demonstrated that the Lycium barbarum berries from Umbria region display high antioxidant properties evaluated by total phenolic content and ORAC method, on hydrophilic and lipophilic fractions. Moreover, on HepG2 cell line Lycium barbarum berries extract did not change cell viability analyzed by MTT and Trypan blue exclusion assay and did not induce genotoxic effect analyzed by comet assay. Furthermore, it was demonstrated, for the first time, that the berries extract showed a protective effect on DNA damage, expressed as antigenotoxic activity in vitro. Finally, Lycium barbarum berries extract was able to modulate the expression of genes involved in oxidative stress, proliferation, apoptosis, and cancer. In particular, downexpression of genes involved in tumor migration and invasion (CCL5), in increased risk of metastasis and antiapoptotic signal (DUSP1), and in carcinogenesis (GPx-3 and PTGS1), together with overexpression of tumor suppressor gene (MT3), suggested that Umbrian Lycium barbarum berries could play a protective role against hepatocellular carcinoma.

1. Introduction

The use of medicinal and edible plants was widely distributed from ancient times to today in Asian countries. During the last twenty years much attention has been paid to plants as novel alternative therapeutic agents and/or as support to the traditional medicine in Europe and North America [1]. The Solanaceae, one of the largest and most important families of flowering plants, includes Lycium barbarum species that are recorded in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia [2]. The plant is commonly called Goji [1] and active molecules have been isolated from seeds, fruits, and leaves of Lycium barbarum. In vitro and in vivo studies displayed antihypertensive, antihyperglycemic, antitumor, antihyperlipidemia, and anti-Alzheimer activities of Lycium barbarum berry (LBB) extract [3].

LBB extract contains high level of health-promoting bioactive components including polysaccharides, flavonoids, and carotenoids [14]. Polysaccharides have been considered the major ingredients responsible for the biological activities of LBB extract. Traditional Chinese medicine considered LBBs to have the ability to maintain the function of eyes and strengthen the activity of liver, kidneys, and lungs [3]. In addition, LBB extract has been historically used as anti-inflammation and antiaging agent for thousands of years [5]. In fact, Oh et al. [6] demonstrated that LBB extract has inhibitor effect on proinflammatory mediator production in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells via blockade on the MAPKs and NF-κB pathways. Additionally, in the last few years, LBBs have been described to modulate the aging by acting on cp53-mediated pathway [7] and on the resistance to the generation of lipid peroxide and other substances, which damage cell membrane lipid [8]. LBB extract has been also described for its immune enhancing [9], antioxidant and anticancer [3], and hepatoprotective and neuroprotective [10] properties. Moreover, it has been highlighted that LBB extract has hypoglycemic and hypolipidemic effects by reducing significantly blood glucose levels and serum total cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations [11]. Interestingly it has been reported a protective effect of LBBs against doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity through antioxidant-mediated mechanisms. In particular LBBs significantly prevents the loss of myofibrils and improves the heart function of the doxorubicin-treated rats [12]. Finally Wang et al. [13] demonstrated that sulfated LBB polysaccharides significantly inhibit the infectivity of Newcastle disease virus to chicken embryo fibroblast.

The original habitat of Lycium barbarum is probably located in the warm regions in Mediterranean area and Southwest and Central Asia [1]. Recently the plant adaptation to different environments has been reported in a study of Lycium barbarum cultivation in Tuscany (Italy) [14].

In this paper we report for the first time that LBBs, cultivated in Umbria (Italy), have very good antioxidant properties, evaluated by two different methods. Moreover, LBBs are able to protect in vitro HepG2 cells from genotoxicity induced by 1,2,4-benzenetriol (BT) and stimulate MT3 tumor suppressor gene, suggesting that LBBs could play a specific role in maintaining cell health.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

LBBs cultivated in Umbria were provided by Impresa Agricola of Gianluca Bazzica, Foligno (Italy); commercial LBBs were bought in pharmacy, Perugia (Italy). Human Caucasian hepatocyte carcinoma HepG2 cells were purchased from Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna “Bruno Ubertini” (Brescia, Italy). Eagle’s Minimum Essential Medium (MEM), L-glutamine, trypsin, and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium and tetrasodium salt (EDTA) were from Microtech Srl (Pozzuoli, NA, Italy). Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) and penicillin-streptomycin were from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA). Antibiotics, sodium pyruvate, and Dulbecco’s phosphate-buffered saline pH 7.4 (PBS) were purchased from Invitrogen Srl (Milan, Italy). Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), ethanol, hydrochloric acid, sodium chloride, and sodium hydroxide were purchased from Carlo Erba Reagenti Srl (Milan, Italy). 6-Hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid (Trolox), Trypan blue solution 0.4%, acridine orange, 4′,6-diamidine-2′-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI), ethidium bromide, low- and normal-melting-point agarose (LMPA and NMPA), 1,2,4-benzenetriol (BT), staurosporine, tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane (Tris), Triton X100, valinomycin, Folin-Ciocalteu, 2,20-azobis (2-methylpropionamide) dihydrochloride (AAPH), and 3-[4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl]-2,5-diphenyl-2-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich Srl (St. Louis, MO, USA).

2.2. Preparation of LBB Extract

Berries from Lycium barbarum were collected from 3-year-old trees growing in Foligno, Umbria Region, Italy (42°55′26.9′′ north, 12°39′29.2′′ east, and altitude 230 m). In this area, the climate is warm and temperate according to Cfa class in Köppen and Geiger classification [15]. The average annual temperature and mean annual rainfall are 14.3°C and 706 mm, respectively. The global solar radiation (on the ground) is 5235 MJ/m2 (dates from ENEA, Commercial LBBs were used as controls. Umbrian and commercial LBBs (1 g) were homogenized in physiological solution (10 mL) with Ultra Turrax T25 Basic homogenizer (Ika Labortechnick, Staufen, Germany) at room temperature for 1 min followed by centrifugation at 3150 ×g for 30 min and the supernatant was used for all experiments.

2.3. Total Phenolic Content (TPC)

The total phenolic content (TPC) of commercial and Umbrian LBB extract was determined using the Folin-Ciocalteu colorimetric method described by Rashidinejad et al. [16] with modifications [17]. Gallic acid stock solution (5 mg/mL) and working standard concentrations of 0, 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, and 500 μg/mL were prepared in deionized water. The Folin-Ciocalteu procedure consisted of transferring 20 μL standard or sample into 4-5 mL borosilicate tube, followed by addition of water (1.58 mL) and Folin-Ciocalteu reagent (100 μL). After mixing the samples, 300 μL of 20% Na2CO3 was added and the samples mixtures were kept for 30 min at 40°C. The total phenols were determined at 765 nm. Total phenol values are expressed in terms of gallic acid equivalent (GAE), which is a common reference compound.

2.4. Antioxidant Assay by Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC)

The antioxidant capacity of Umbrian LBB extract was determined using the ORAC method [18]. The hydrophilic and lipophilic fractions were extracted according to Prior et al. [19]. A duplicate extraction was performed for each sample and used to evaluate the lipophilic (L-ORACFL) and hydrophilic ORACFL (H-ORACFL) values [19]. Evaluations of the lipophilic and hydrophilic ORACFL in the LBBs samples were performed separately, and the total antioxidant capacity (TAC) was calculated by adding the L-ORACFL and H-ORACFL values [20]. The ORACFL assays were carried out on a FLUOstar OPTIMA microplate fluorescence reader (BMG LABTECH, Offenburg, Germany) at an excitation wavelength of 485 nm and an emission wavelength of 520 nm. The procedure was based on the method of Zulueta et al. [21] with slight modifications. Briefly, 2,20-azobis (2-methylpropionamide) dihydrochloride (AAPH) was used as a peroxyl radical generator, Trolox was used as a reference antioxidant standard, and fluorescein was used as a fluorescent probe. The data are expressed as micromoles of Trolox equivalents (TE) per gram of sample (μmol TE/g).

2.5. Cell Culture and Treatments

HepG2 cells were grown in monolayer cultures in 25 cm2 tissue flasks, with MEM supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated FBS, 1 mmol/L of sodium pyruvate, 2 mM of L-glutamine, and antibiotics (100 U/mL penicillin, 100 μg/mL streptomycin). The cells were maintained in a cell incubator at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2. When the cells reached 80–90% of confluence, the routine culture medium was aspirated and the HepG2 cells were washed with PBS 1X. The cells were then harvested by 0.05% trypsin in 0.02% Na4EDTA for 5 min at 37°C and suspended in 1 : 3 supplemented growth medium to be maintained in the exponential growth phase.

2.6. Cell Viability

Cell viability was tested by MTT and Trypan blue exclusion assay.

2.6.1. MTT Assay

Cellular viability was assessed by the reduction of MTT to formazan [22]. HepG2 cells were seeded onto 96-well plate at a density of 1 × 104 cells/well with MEM complete medium. After 24 h in each well culture medium was replaced with fresh complete medium containing different concentrations (400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, 2400, 2600, and 2800 μg/mL) of Umbrian LBB extract and incubated for additional 24 h. Then, MTT reagent was dissolved in PBS 1x and added to the culture at 0.5 mg/mL final concentration. After 3 h incubation at 37°C, the supernatant was carefully removed and formazan salt crystals were dissolved in 200 μL DMSO added to each well. The absorbance (OD) values were measured spectrophotometrically at 540 nm using an automatic microplate reader (Eliza MAT 2000, DRG Instruments, GmbH). Each experiment was performed two times in quadruplicate. Cell viability was expressed as a percentage relative to that of the control cells set at 100%.

2.6.2. Trypan Blue Exclusion Assay

Trypan blue was performed according to Srivastava et al. [23] with modifications. Cytotoxicity using the Trypan blue exclusion assay was measured using a Countess™ (Invitrogen Srl, Milan, Italy) automated cell counter. Briefly, 50 μL of HepG2 cell suspensions was mixed with equal volumes of 0.4% Trypan blue and loaded onto a Countess cell counting chamber slide. The instrument is equipped with a camera that acquires images from cell samples on the chamber slide, and the image analysis software automatically analyzes acquired cell images and measures cell count and viability.

2.7. Comet Assay

Cells, for genotoxic and antigenotoxic assays, were analyzed by comet assay [24]. For genotoxicity testing, HepG2 cells were seeded onto 6-well plate at a density of 1 × 105 cells/well with MEM complete medium. After 48 h, in each well culture medium was replaced with fresh complete MEM containing different concentrations (200, 600, 1000, 1400, and 1800 μg/mL) of Umbrian LBB extract and incubated for 4 h. Negative (MEM) and positive 100 mM of 1,2,4-benzenetriol (BT) controls were included in each experimental set [25]. Each experimental set was repeated at least 3 times. For antigenotoxicity testing, HepG2 cells were cultured for 15 days in the presence of 1800 μg/mL of LBB extract, added to the medium as a nutritional supplement. After the treatment, LBBs extract was removed from the medium to avoid scavenger effects. The HepG2 cells were divided into two groups, the first one (negative control) grown only in complete medium (MEM) and the second one grown with MEM added with LBB extract. Both groups were used to perform comet assay and incubated 4 h with only MEM or with 100 mM of BT. Each experimental set was repeated at least 3 times [26].

For both experiments cells were collected by centrifugation at 70 g for 8 min at 4°C and then processed in the comet assay under alkaline conditions (lysis at pH 10, unwinding and electrophoresis at pH > 13). The comet assay was carried out basically following the original procedure [24], with minor modifications [27] using the double-spot system. Briefly, cell pellets were gently resuspended in 0.7% LMPA in PBS maintained at 37°C. Then, the cell suspensions were rapidly layered onto agarized microscope slides. After the gels were allowed to solidify, the slides were immersed in cold, freshly prepared cellular lysing solution (2.5 M NaCl, 100 mM Na2EDTA, 10 mM Tris-HCl; pH 10; and 1% Triton X100 added just before use) overnight at 4°C. After the membranes lysis, the slides were placed in a horizontal electrophoresis box (HU20, Scie-Plas, Cambridge, UK) filled with a freshly prepared electrophoresis solution (10 mM Na4EDTA, 300 mM NaOH; pH > 13). After 20 min of preelectrophoresis to allow DNA unwinding and expression of alkali-labile damage, electrophoresis runs were performed in an ice bath for 20 min by applying an electric field of 1 V/cm and adjusting the current to 300 mA (Power Supply PS250, Hybaid, Chesterfield, MO, USA). The microgels were then neutralized with 0.4 M Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.5). For scoring, the slides were stained with 50 μL of EtBr (20 μg/mL). The comets in each microgel were analyzed (blind), at 200x magnification, with an epifluorescent microscope (BX41, Olympus Co., Tokyo, Japan) under a 100 W high-pressure mercury lamp (HSH-1030-L, Ushio Inc., Tokyo, Japan), using appropriate optical filters (excitation filter 510–550 nm and emission filter 590 nm). The microscope, equipped with a high sensitivity black and white CCD camera (PE2020, Pulnix Europe Ltd., Basingstoke, UK), was connected to a computerized analysis system (“comet assay III,” Perceptive Instruments, Suffolk, UK). The tail intensity, that is, percent of fluorescence migrated in the comet tail, which is considered to be the most useful parameter system [28], was used to evaluate DNA damage. A total of 100 randomly selected comets (50 cells/replicate spot) were evaluated for each experimental point. For each independent test, the median tail intensity of 50 cells/spot was assessed and the average of 2 replicated spots was calculated as a summary statistic [29].

2.8. Acridine Orange and DAPI Staining

In order to determine cell viability, the same samples, which contained cells in suspension, used for comet assay were mixed with a solution of acridine orange (30 μg/mL) and DAPI (100 μg/mL). Acridine orange is necessary to stain the entire population of cells, while DAPI is used to stain nonviable cells. Briefly, for each sample 5 μL of mixture of dyes was added to 95 μL of cell suspension. Then the samples were immediately loaded into the NC-Slides A8 and read with the NucleoCounter NC-3000 analysis system (ChemoMetec A/S, Denmark). The system recognizes and counts all cells (green fluorescence) and the nonviable cells (blue fluorescence), subtracting the latter value to the first automatically and then returning the data related to the viability of each sample.

2.9. PCR-Array Analysis

HepG2 cells cultured in the absence or presence of Umbrian LBB extract were used for total RNA extraction performed by using RNAqueous®-4PCR kit (Ambion Inc., Austin, Texas) as previously reported [30]. Samples were treated with RNAse-free DNase to prevent amplification of genomic DNA. Samples were dissolved in RNAse-free water and total RNA was quantified by measuring the absorbance at 260 nm (). The purity of RNA was evaluated by using the / ratio. / ratio also was used as indicator of chemical contaminants in nucleic acids. The extracted RNA was immediately frozen and maintained at −80°C. Before cDNA synthesis, the integrity of RNA was confirmed by denaturing electrophoresis in TAE 1.2% agarose gel [31]. cDNA was synthesized using 1 μg total RNA for all samples by High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) under the following conditions: 50°C for 2 min, 95°C for 10 min, 95°C for 15 sec, and 60°C for 1 min for 40 cycles. RTqPCR was performed using Master Mix TaqMan® Gene Expression and 7.300 RT-PCR instrument (Applied Biosystems), targeting genes in TaqMan Array 96-Well Plate P/N: 4414250.

2.10. Statistical Analysis

Data were reported as the mean ± SD of experiments conducted in triplicate. The significance of treatment was analyzed using the Student -test ( value was <0.001).

3. Results and Discussion

Lycium barbarum cultivated in Umbria grows up to 2 meters similarly to Chinese one [1]. The plant produces a bright orange-red, oval berry 1.5 cm long and possesses a sweet taste. In the traditional East Asian medicine the LBB extract is known to have beneficial effects for the health, thanks to their antioxidant properties [32]. Thus, we first evaluated the total phenolic content (TPC) of LBBs cultivated in Umbria in order to make a comparison with commercial LBBs produced in Asia. TPC value is  mgGAE/100 g dry weight (DW), using 80% ethanol for the extraction (Figure 1). It has been reported that dehydrated LBBs had the TPC value of  mgGAE/100 g, performing the extraction with 80% methanol [33]. The influence of the solvent, used for the extraction on the TPC value, has been previously investigated and it was found a reduction of 1.3-fold or 2.2-fold using methanol instead of ethanol [34, 35]. In any case, also taking into account the variability due to different method of extraction, the Umbrian LBBs have a TPC higher than commercial one. To confirm these result 80% ethanol extract of commercial LBBs was prepared. The results show a TPC value of  mgGAE/100 g, similar to that reported in the literature [23], confirming the highest TPC of Umbrian LBBs. It is difficult to establish exactly the reason of this difference, but we can hypothesize that the climate, the season, and therefore the hours of sunshine could contribute positively to the result of TPC.

The Umbrian LBB extract exhibits antioxidant activity value of μmol TE/100 g DW with ORAC method (Figure 1), whereas the value of commercial LBB extract is μmol TE/100 g DW. Thus, the values obtained for LBBs cultivated in Umbria and commercial LBBs, in terms of antioxidant activity, were similar despite the different TPC. It is possible to conclude that both TPC and antioxidant activity are very high in LBBs cultivated in Umbria ground. These results do not mean that TPC and ORAC are directly correlated because TPC evaluates only the polyphenol antioxidant properties, whereas ORAC indicates the total antioxidant properties.

Recently, LBBs have been described to have apoptotic and antiproliferative effects on cancer cells in vitro and in vivo [3]. Based on these results, we investigated the cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, and antigenotoxicity of Umbrian LBB extract in HepG2, human hepatocellular carcinoma cells. This cell line has been chosen for its high degree of morphological and functional differentiation in vitro and also because it is a suitable model to study drug and plant metabolites targeting in vitro [3638]. MTT assay has been used to test cell viability at different concentration of LBB extract (400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, 2400, 2600, and 2800 μg/mL) after 24 h of culture (Figure 2). With low concentrations (400–800 μg/mL) and with high concentrations (1800–2800 μg/mL) of LBB extract, the cell viability did not change in comparison with control cells (CTRLs). At 1000, 1200, 1400, and 1600 μg/mL concentrations the cell viability was reduced by 12%, 11%, 14%, and 18%, respectively, indicating that highest inhibitory effect of LBBs was at 1600 μg/mL concentration. As shown in Figure 4 the highest concentrations (from 1800 to 2800 μg/mL) have a very important standard deviation. Given the nature of cell type, that is, an immortalized cell line, the variability is normal and the standard deviation conforms to the experimental system. Anyway the cell viability is more than 80% in overall concentration used. The behavior of the LBBs assays by Trypan blue exclusion test appears similar to that obtained by MTT assay (Figure 2). The vitality percentage with Trypan blue assay evaluated at critical concentration (from 800 to 2000 μg/mL) is lower than the vitality percentage obtained with MTT assay according to previous observations [39].

The increase of cell viability at concentration up to 1600 μg/mL could be explained by the nonlinear dose-responses of plants and other natural products [40]. Gan et al. [41] demonstrated that 10 mg/kg dose of Chinese LBBs was more effective than 5 and 20 mg/kg doses in the reduction of sarcoma weight and in improving the immune system in the mice.

Thus, we demonstrated that Umbrian LBBs weakly influence HepG2 cell viability in a dose depending manner but without any cytotoxic effect at all concentration considered. The subsequent objective was to test the potential genotoxic effect on HepG2 cell line at different concentrations of LBB extract (200, 600, 1000, 1400, and 1800 μg/mL) after 4 h of treatment. The reason for selecting this exposure time (4 h) is to avoid the initiation of DNA repair events that would result in an underestimation of the damage. Untreated cells, used as negative control, show a tail intensity of % whereas the positive control, 100 mM of 1,2,4 benzenetriol (BT), reveals a significant high percentage of tail intensity of 19.07 ± 1.66% (Figure 3(a)). BT is a metabolite of benzene which leads to the formation of numerous free radicals inside the cells, able to cause oxidative damage to DNA [25]. The results obtained with all LBB concentrations are similar to negative control sample indicating the absence of genotoxicity (Figure 3(a)). This result is very important because it is the first time that genotoxicity has been tested on LBB extract and it should be evaluated in all type of phytoextracts. Finally the LBB highest concentration (1800 μg/mL) was used to confirm the viability of cells using acridine orange and DAPI staining after 4 h of treatment just before proceeding to the comet assay. Only the sample treated with BT showed a high number of positive cells to DAPI, colored in blue (Figure 3(c)). This result further confirms that Umbrian LBBs have no genotoxic effect on HepG2 cell line (Figure 3(d)). The absence of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity in LBBs extract is of fundamental importance for the use of this plant extract in the diet as a strong antioxidant. The positive actions of LBB extract in disease prevention are now mainstream and commercial health claims being made are subject to regulation in most countries. To this end, for the first time, the antigenotoxic effect of LBB extract has been tested in vitro using the HepG2 cell line. The HepG2 cells were cultured for 15 days in the presence of 1800 μg/mL of LBB extract, previously used for genotoxic assay. The recommended dosage of LBBs in human varies between 5 g and 12 g. If you considered a subject of 70 kg medium weight with about 5 L of blood, the inhibitor concentrations we used range from 5 g to 8 g. Since 8.5 g is medium recommended dosage [1], we used 1800 μg/mL concentration corresponding to about 9 g to test if, despite no changes in viability and toxicity, it could induce changes in genes expression on HepG2 cells. In Figure 4 the DNA damage induced by BT is reported when HepG2 cells were pretreated for 15 days with LBBs. Untreated cells, used as negative control, show a tail intensity of % and the cells treated with LBB extract for 15 day have a tail intensity of %. This result confirms the absence of genotoxicity induced by LBB extract not only for 24 h (Figure 3(a)), but also after 15 days of treatment. The positive control, 100 mM BT, reveals a tail intensity of %, but the cells preexposed to LBBs show a tail intensity of %. It means that the LBB extract is able to reduce significantly the DNA damage of 29.3%, if we consider the positive control as a 100% of DNA damage. This finding is of great importance for the use the LBB extract in the diet or for the production of functional food.

It has been reported that the expression of three important genes (TNF, NFB1, and Bcl-2), involved in cell survival, was modulated in mice fed with LBB suspension [42]. Based on these results, to investigate this aspect in a more exhaustive manner, quantitative real-time PCR-array analysis, with a panel of 96 genes involved in oxidative stress, proliferation, apoptosis, and cancer, was performed in HepG2 cells (Figure 5). We used 1800 μg/mL concentration of LBB extract to test gene expression in HepG2 cell line because this concentration did not change cell viability and genotoxicity.

For real-time PCR, mRNA levels were normalized using GAPDH as internal control. The results show that few specific genes are modulated by LBBs. As shown in Figure 6, where the gene expression is referred to that of untreated cells, CCL5, DUSP1, GPX3, and PTGS1 genes are downexpressed by %-, %-, %-, %-fold, respectively, and MT3 gene is overexpressed by about %-fold. CCL5 is an 8 kDa protein classified as a chemotactic cytokine or chemokine that exerted protumoral effects on human hepatoma cells through its G protein-coupled receptor, CCR1, and is involved in HepG2, Hep3B, and Huh7 human hepatoma cell migration, invasion, or spreading induced by the chemokine [43]. Dual-specificity phosphatases 1 (DUSP1) belong to a protein family responsible for dephosphorylating threonine/serine and tyrosine residues on their substrates; it is associated with different kinds of cancers and with an increased risk of metastasis and shorter overall survival [44]. In HepG2, DUSP1 prevents the apoptotic effect which is mycotoxin-induced [45]. GPx-3 is a selenoprotein belonging to the glutathione peroxidase family upregulated in HepG2 cells, indicating its role in the development of liver carcinogenesis [46]. Prostaglandin H synthase 1 (PTGS1) is implicated in colorectal carcinogenesis [47] and it is considered a good target for cancer therapy [48]. Metallothionein 3 (MT3) is considered a putative tumor suppressor gene [49]. Decreased expression of MT3 has been found in gastric cancer, esophageal adenocarcinoma, and squamous cell cancer [50, 51].

Therefore, downexpression of genes involved in tumor migration and invasion (CCL5), in increased risk of metastasis and antiapoptotic signal (DUSP1), and in carcinogenesis (GPx-3 and PTGS1) together with overexpression of tumor suppressor gene (MT3) suggests that Umbrian LBBs play an anticancer role. However, potential cancer-suppressive effects of LBBs should be further evaluated in in vivo and in vitro experiments. If you consider the high antioxidant activity of LBBs, it is possible to suppose that their potential anticancer role in vitro could be due to the high content of polyphenols. In fact, Chen et al. described a correlation between flavonoids and antiproliferative activities of Rhamnus davurica [52] and Xia et al. demonstrated a potential antihepatocellular carcinoma agent of flavonoids, using HepG2 cell line [38]. Among flavonoids, gallic acid is known to be an anticancer agent since it reduces cell survival, proliferation, and invasion in PC3 cells by downregulating IL-6 with consequent reduction of pSTAT3, pERK1/2, and pAKT signaling proteins [53]. At the moment the phytochemical composition of LBBs from Umbria is unknown. For further experiments it will be useful to clarify this point.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion the Lycium barbarum plant, originally cultivated in East Asia, has Umbrian environment adaptability. This could be due to the ability of the plants to learn from experience and to memorize previous experiences in order to optimize the acclimation to environmental stresses. This behavior is considered a form of intelligence of the plants [41]. The overall results show, for the first time, that the LBBs cultivated in Umbria have not only high antioxidant properties, but also a significant antigenotoxic effect. Finally LBBs appear to regulate the expression of genes involved in tumor progression and metastasis. However, prospective cancer-suppressive effects of LBBs should be further evaluated in in vivo and in vitro experiments.


AAPH:2,20-Azobis(2-methylpropionamide) dihydrochloride
cDNA:Complementary DNA
DAPI:4′,6-Diamidine-2′-phenylindole dihydrochloride
DW:Dry weight
FBS:Fetal Bovine Serum
HepG2:Human Caucasian hepatocyte carcinoma
LMPA:Low-melting-point agarose
LBBs: Lycium barbarum berries
MEM:Eagle’s Minimum Essential Medium
MTT:3-[4,5-Dimethyl-2-thiazolyl]-2,5-diphenyl-2-tetrazolium  bromide
NMPA:Normal-melting-point agarose
ORAC:Antioxidant assay by oxygen radical absorbance capacity
PBS:Phosphate-buffered saline
RTqPCR:Real-time polymerase chain reaction
TE:Trolox equivalents
TPC:Total phenolic content
Trolox:6-Hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid


M. R. Ceccarini is currently a Ph.D. student in “Public Health and Veterinary Sciences” XXIX Cycle at the University of Perugia, Italy, and this work is part of her Ph.D. program. S. Vannini is a Ph.D. student at the University of Perugia, Italy. S. Cataldi is a Ph.D. student at the University of Perugia, Italy. M. Moretti is a Professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. M. Villarini is a Researcher at the University of Perugia, Italy. B. Fioretti is a Researcher at the University of Perugia, Italy. E. Albi is an M.D. and Ph.D. Researcher at the University of Perugia, Italy. T. Beccari is a Professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. M. Codini is a Researcher at the University of Perugia, Italy.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there are no competing interests regarding the publication of this paper and the mentioned received funding in Acknowledgments.


This study has been financially supported by Regione Umbria (Italy) (Grant PSR 2007/2013 to T. Beccari; no. 44750050831). LBBs are gently provided by Impresa Agricola of Gianluca Bazzica, Foligno (Italy). The authors are grateful for the support of the Consorzio Interuniversitario per le Biotecnologie (CIB).


  1. O. Potterat, “Goji (Lycium barbarum and L. chinense): phytochemistry, pharmacology and safety in the perspective of traditional uses and recent popularity,” Planta Medica, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 7–19, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. T. Xin, H. Yao, H. Gao et al., “Super food Lycium barbarum (Solanaceae) traceability via an internal transcribed spacer 2 barcode,” Food Research International, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 1699–1704, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. Cheng, Z. W. Zhou, H. P. Sheng et al., “An evidence-based update on the pharmacological activities and possible molecular targets of Lycium barbarum polysaccharides,” Journal of Drug Design Development and Therapy, vol. 17, pp. 33–78, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. H. Amagase and D. M. Nance, “Lycium barbarum increases caloric expenditure and decreases waist circumference in healthy overweight men and women: pilot study,” Journal of the American College of Nutrition, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 304–309, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. M. Jin, Q. Huang, K. Zhao, and P. Shang, “Biological activities and potential health benefit effects of polysaccharides isolated from Lycium barbarum L.,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 16–23, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. Y.-C. Oh, W.-K. Cho, G. Y. Im et al., “Anti-inflammatory effect of Lycium Fruit water extract in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated RAW 264.7 macrophage cells,” International Immunopharmacology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 181–189, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. G. Xia, N. Xin, W. Liu, H. Yao, Y. Hou, and J. Qi, “Inhibitory effect of Lycium barbarum polysaccharides on cell apoptosis and senescence is potentially mediated by the p53 signaling pathway,” Molecular Medicine Reports, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1237–1241, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. T. Tang and B. He, “Treatment of d-galactose induced mouse aging with Lycium barbarum polysaccharides and its mechanism study,” African Journal of Traditional, Complementary, and Alternative Medicines, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 12–17, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  9. W.-M. Tang, E. Chan, C.-Y. Kwok et al., “A review of the anticancer and immunomodulatory effects of Lycium barbarum fruit,” Inflammopharmacology, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 307–314, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. H. Amagase and N. R. Farnsworth, “A review of botanical characteristics, phytochemistry, clinical relevance in efficacy and safety of Lycium barbarum fruit (Goji),” Food Research International, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 1702–1717, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. Q. Luo, Y. Cai, J. Yan, M. Sun, and H. Corke, “Hypoglycemic and hypolipidemic effects and antioxidant activity of fruit extracts from Lycium barbarum,” Life Sciences, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 137–149, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. Y.-F. Xin, G.-L. Zhou, Z.-Y. Deng et al., “Protective effect of Lycium barbarum on doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity,” Phytotherapy Research, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1020–1024, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. J. Wang, Y. Hu, D. Wang et al., “Lycium barbarum polysaccharide inhibits the infectivity of Newcastle disease virus to chicken embryo fibroblast,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 212–216, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. G. Capecchi, E. Goti, E. Nicolai, M. C. Bergonzi, R. Monnanni, and A. R. Bilia, “Goji berry: quality assessment and crop adaptation of plants cultivated in tuscany (Italy) by combination of carotenoid and DNA analyses,” Natural Product Communications, vol. 10, pp. 1035–1036, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  15. M. Kottek, J. Grieser, C. Beck, B. Rudolf, and F. Rubel, “World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated,” Meteorologische Zeitschrift, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 259–263, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. A. Rashidinejad, E. J. Birch, D. Sun-Waterhouse, and D. W. Everett, “Effects of catechin on the phenolic content and antioxidant properties of low-fat cheese,” International Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 2448–2455, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. R. Branciari, D. Ranucci, M. Trabalza-Marinucci et al., “Evaluation of the antioxidant properties and oxidative stability of Pecorino cheese made from the raw milk of ewes fed Rosmarinus officinalis L. leaves,” International Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 558–565, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. E. Persichetti, A. De Michele, M. Codini, and G. Traina, “Antioxidative capacity of Lactobacillus fermentum LF31 evaluated invitro by oxygen radical absorbance capacity assay,” Nutrition, vol. 30, no. 7-8, pp. 936–938, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. R. L. Prior, H. Hoang, L. Gu et al., “Assays for hydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidant capacity (oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORACFL)) of plasma and other biological and food samples,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 3273–3279, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. X. Wu, G. R. Beecher, J. M. Holden, D. B. Haytowitz, S. E. Gebhardt, and R. L. Prior, “Lipophilic and hydrophilic antioxidant capacities of common foods in the United States,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 4026–4037, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. A. Zulueta, A. Maurizi, A. Frígola, M. J. Esteve, R. Coli, and G. Burini, “Antioxidant capacity of cow milk, whey and deproteinized milk,” International Dairy Journal, vol. 19, no. 6-7, pp. 380–385, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. F. Denizot and R. Lang, “Rapid colorimetric assay for cell growth and survival. Modifications to the tetrazolium dye procedure giving improved sensitivity and reliability,” Journal of Immunological Methods, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 271–277, 1986. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. A. N. Srivastava, R. Ahmad, and M. A. Khan, “Evaluation and comparison of the in vitro cytotoxic activity of Withania somnifera methanolic and ethanolic extracts against MDA-MB-231 and vero cell lines,” Scientia Pharmaceutica, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 41–59, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. R. R. Tice, E. Agurell, D. Anderson et al., “Single cell gel/comet assay: guidelines for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology testing,” Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 206–221, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. S. Kawanashi, S. Inoue, and M. Kawanashi, “Human DNA damage induced by 1,2,4-benzenetriol, a benzene metabolite,” Cancer Research, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 164–168, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  26. L. Dominici, M. Moretti, M. Vlilarini et al., “In vivo antigenotoxic properties of a commercial probiotic supplement containing bifidobacteria,” International Journal of Probiotics and Prebiotics, vol. 6, no. 3-4, pp. 179–186, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  27. M. Moretti, L. Cossignani, F. Messina et al., “Antigenotoxic effect, composition and antioxidant activity of Dendrobium speciosum,” Food Chemistry, vol. 140, no. 4, pp. 660–665, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. A. R. Collins, “The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: principles, applications, and limitations,” Molecular Biotechnology, vol. 26, pp. 249–261, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  29. D. P. Lovell and T. Omori, “Statistical issues in the use of the comet assay,” Mutagenesis, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 171–182, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. M. Codini, S. Cataldi, F. S. Ambesi-Impiombato et al., “Gentamicin arrests cancer cell growth: the intriguing involvement of nuclear sphingomyelin metabolism,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 2307–2319, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. T. Masek, V. Vopalensky, P. Suchomelova, and M. Pospisek, “Denaturing RNA electrophoresis in TAE agarose gels,” Analytical Biochemistry, vol. 336, no. 1, pp. 46–50, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. C. C. Wang, S. C. Chang, B. S. Inbaraj, and B. H. Chen, “Isolation of carotenoids, flavonoids and polysaccharides from Lycium barbarum L. and evaluation of antioxidant activity,” Food Chemistry, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 184–192, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. D. Istrati, C. Vizireanu, G. Iordachescu, F. Dima, and M. Garnai, “Physico-chemical characteristics and antioxidant activity of goji fruits jam and jelly during storage,” Annals of the University Dunarea de Jos of Galati, Fascicle VI: Food Technology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 100–110, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  34. M. E. Ionica, V. Nour, and I. Trandafir, “Polyphenols content and antioxidant capacity of goji fruits (Lycium chinense) as affected by the extraction solvents,” South Western Journal, vol. 3, pp. 121–129, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  35. M. Mazandarani, Z. Moghaddam, M. R. Zolfaghari, E. A. Ghaemi, and H. Bayat, “Effects of solvent type on phenolics and flavonoids content and antioxidant activities in Onosma dichroanthum Boiss,” Journal of Medicinal Plants Research, vol. 6, no. 28, pp. 4481–4488, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. A. L. Roe, J. E. Snawder, R. W. Benson, D. W. Roberts, and D. A. Casciano, “HepG2 cells: An in vitro model for P450-dependent metabolism of acetaminophen,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 190, no. 1, pp. 15–19, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. P. F. Dehn, C. M. White, D. E. Conners, G. Shipkey, and T. A. Cumbo, “Characterization of the human hepatocellular carcinoma (HEPG2) cell line as an in vitro model for cadmium toxicity studies,” In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology-Animal, vol. 40, no. 5-6, pp. 172–182, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  38. J. F. Xia, J. J. Gao, Y. Inagaki, N. Kokudo, M. Nakata, and W. Tang, “Flavonoids as potential anti-hepatocellular carcinoma agents: recent approaches using HepG2 cell line,” Drug Discoveries & Therapeutics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. D. S. Masson-Meyers, V. V. Bumah, and C. S. Enwemeka, “A comparison of four methods for determining viability in human dermal fibroblasts irradiated with blue light,” Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods, vol. 79, pp. 15–22, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. I. R. Bell, B. Sarter, L. J. Standish, P. Banerji, and P. Banerji, “Low doses of traditional nanophytomedicines for clinical treatment: manufacturing processes and nonlinear response patterns,” Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 4021–4038, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. L. Gan, S. H. Zhang, X. L. Yang, and H. B. Xu, “Immunomodulation and antitumor activity by a polysaccharide-protein complex from Lycium barbarum,” International Immunopharmacology, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 563–569, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. N.-C. Lin, J.-C. Lin, S.-H. Chen, C.-T. Ho, and A.-I. Yeh, “Effect of goji (Lycium barbarum) on expression of genes related to cell survival,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 59, no. 18, pp. 10088–10096, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. F. Charni, V. Friand, O. Haddad et al., “Syndecan-1 and syndecan-4 are involved in RANTES/CCL5-induced migration and invasion of human hepatoma cells,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol. 1790, no. 10, pp. 1314–1326, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. T. Boulding, F. Wu, R. McCuaig et al., “Differential roles for DUSP family members in epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and cancer stem cell regulation in breast cancer,” PLoS ONE, vol. 11, no. 2, Article ID e0148065, pp. 1–23, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. M. Casteel, C. Nielsen, S. Kothlow, R. Dietrich, and E. Märtlbauer, “Impact of DUSP1 on the apoptotic potential of deoxynivalenol in the epithelial cell line HepG2,” Toxicology Letters, vol. 199, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. H. Zhao, J. Tang, J. Xu et al., “Selenoprotein genes exhibit differential expression patterns between hepatoma HepG2 and normal hepatocytes LO2 cell lines,” Biological Trace Element Research, vol. 167, no. 2, pp. 236–241, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. P. C. Chulada, M. B. Thompson, J. F. Mahler et al., “Genetic disruption of Ptgs-1, as well as of Ptgs-2, reduces intestinal tumorigenesis in min mice,” Cancer Research, vol. 60, no. 17, pp. 4705–4708, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  48. M. Nakanishi, V. Gokhale, E. J. Meuillet, and D. W. Rosenberg, “mPGES-1 as a target for cancer suppression: a comprehensive invited review ‘phospholipase A2 and lipid mediators’,” Biochimie, vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 660–664, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. Y.-F. Tao, L.-X. Xu, J. Lu et al., “Metallothionein III (MT3) is a putative tumor suppressor gene that is frequently inactivated in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia by promoter hypermethylation,” Journal of Translational Medicine, vol. 12, no. 1, article 182, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. D. Deng, W. El-Rifai, J. Ji et al., “Hypermethylation of metallothionein-3 CpG island in gastric carcinoma,” Carcinogenesis, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 25–29, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. E. Smith, P. A. Drew, Z.-Q. Tian et al., “Metallothionien 3 expression is frequently down-regulated in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma by DNA methylation,” Molecular Cancer, vol. 4, article 42, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. G. Chen, X. Li, F. Saleri, and M. Guo, “Analysis of flavonoids in Rhamnus davurica and its antiproliferative activities,” Molecules, vol. 21, no. 10, p. 1275, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. E. Heidarian, M. Keloushadi, K. Ghatreh-Samani, and P. Valipour, “The reduction of IL-6 gene expression, pAKT, pERK1/2, pSTAT3 signaling pathways and invasion activity by gallic acid in prostate cancer PC3 cells,” Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, vol. 84, pp. 264–269, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2016 M. R. Ceccarini et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.