Effect of Montepulciano d'Abruzzo red wine and main phenols on mouse skeletal muscle cells

Red wine polyphenols include substances such as anthocyanins, resveratrol, gallic acid, catechin, myricetin, quercetin, etc. All these compounds are likely responsible for an enhancement of the antioxidant capacity of plasma in humans with an anti-atherogenic activity expounded mainly through anti-oxidative effects on low-density lipoprotein oxidation, thereby modulating the systemic antioxidant defense system [1,2]. There are many studies about the protecting effects of resveratrol, because of antioxidant and cytoprotective properties, on various tissues, including skeletal muscle. Ischemia and reperfusion injury of the skeletal muscle is a common and serious condition observed in patients admitting to peripheral vascular surgery, interventional radiology and cardiology departments. This polyphenol has statistically significant protecting effects against acute ischemia and reperfusion injury of skeletal muscle [3]. Although resveratrol has cytoprotective properties, little is known about the effect of other phenols and wine in general on the proliferation of this tissue. The goal of this study was to determine the effect of red wine, and single poliphenols on proliferative capability of skeletal muscle cell line C2C12. Total phenolics of commercial red wine were spectrophotometrically determined following a derived method of Folin-Ciocalteu resulting of 1050mg/L. Single components were quantified by HPLC-DAD resulting in variable amount from 0.6µg/mL (resveratrol) to 0.94mg/mL (catechin). Cells viability was determined 12 and 24h after stimulation with crude wine, catechin, resveratrol, gallic acid, rutin and a mixture of all. Stimuli were tested at doses ranging from 0.87 to 66µl/mL. Wine inhibits cells proliferation at higher dosage up to 8.25µl/ml with inhibition rate around 70%. At lower dosage no toxic effect was observed. Nor single component nor hydro-alcoholic solution showed toxic effect at the doses used, suggesting that the activity is related to interaction in phytocomplex rather than to single component.

References: 1. Duthie, M.W. et al. (1998) Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 52:733–736. 2. Durak, M.Y. et al. (1999) Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 15:208–213. 3. Ikizler, M. et al. (2006) Chin. J. Physiol. 49:204–209