[Chemical constituents of bark of Taxus chinensis var. mairei].

OBJECTIVE: To study the chemical constituents in the bark of Taxus chinensis var. mairei collected from southeast of China. METHODS: Chemical constituents were isolated and purified by column chromatography, Prep-TLC, and preparative HPLC. The structures were identified on the basis of 1D-and 2D-NMR spectral analysis. RESULTS: Twelve taxane diterpenoids were isolated from the bark of Taxus chinensis var. mairei grown in southeast of China. They were identified as: taxagifine (1), decinnamoyltaxagifine (2), 19-debenzoyl-19-acetyltaxinine M(3), 9-dihydro-13-acetyl-baccatin III (4), 7, 9-dideacetylbaccatin IV (5), 1,3-dihydro-taxinine (6), taxumairol C (7), taxezopidine J (8), 7-xylosyl-10-deacetyl-taxol A (9),10-deacetyltaxol (10), taxicin II (11), and 2alpha, 7beta, 10beta-triacetoxy-5alpha, 13alpha-dihydroxy-2 (3 --> 20) abeotaxa-4 (20), 11-dien-9-one (12). CONCLUSION: Compounds 1, 2, 4 - 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are obtained from this plant for the first time. Compound 7 is obtained from the bark of Taxus chinensis var. mairei for the first time.

Chlorogenic acid effectively treats cancers through induction of cancer cell differentiation.

RATIONALE: Inducing cancer differentiation is a promising approach to treat cancer. Here, we identified chlorogenic acid (CA), a potential differentiation inducer, for cancer therapy, and elucidated the molecular mechanisms underlying its differentiation-inducing effects on cancer cells. METHODS: Cancer cell differentiation was investigated by measuring malignant behavior, including growth rate, invasion/migration, morphological change, maturation, and ATP production. Gene expression was analyzed by microarray analysis, qRT-PCR, and protein measurement, and molecular biology techniques were employed for mechanistic studies. LC/MS analysis was the method of choice for chemical detection. Finally, the anticancer effect of CA was evaluated both in vitro and in vivo. Results: Cancer cells treated with CA showed reduced proliferation rate, migration/invasion ability, and mitochondrial ATP production. Treating cancer cells with CA resulted in elevated SUMO1 expression through acting on its 3'UTR and stabilizing the mRNA. The increased SUMO1 caused c-Myc sumoylation, miR-17 family downregulation, and p21 upregulation leading to G0/G1 arrest and maturation phenotype. CA altered the expression of differentiation-related genes in cancer cells but not in normal cells. It inhibited hepatoma and lung cancer growth in tumor-bearing mice and prevented new tumor development in naïve mice. In glioma cells, CA increased expression of specific differentiation biomarkers Tuj1 and GFAP inducing differentiation and reducing sphere formation. The therapeutic efficacy of CA in glioma cells was comparable to that of temozolomide. CA was detectable both in the blood and brain when administered intraperitoneally in animals. Most importantly, CA was safe even at very high doses. CONCLUSION: CA might be a safe and effective differentiation-inducer for cancer therapy. "Educating" cancer cells to differentiate, rather than killing them, could be a novel therapeutic strategy for cancer.