Back to all available

Network pharmacology-directed validation: Ginkgo biloba extract EGb761 triggers apoptosis in Colorectal Cancer by suppressing AKT /BCL2 signaling

biochemistry
bioinformatics
cell-biology
oncology
pharmacology

Abstract

Background : Ginkgo biloba, a botanical that is deeply rooted in traditional Chinese medicine, has demonstrated significant anti-colorectal cancer (CRC) potential.
Method: In this study, its pharmacological mechanisms are investigated through integrated computational and experimental approaches.
Results: Through m ultiomics network pharmacology and machine learning , BCL2 was identified as the primary target, and its effects were mediated by PI3K /AKT signaling. Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations confirmed the stable binding between flavonoids (core components of standardized extract EGb761 ) and BCL2 . In vitrovalidation revealed that EGb761 decreased RKO cell viability (IC₅₀ = 765 μg /ml) and increased apoptosis, concomitant with decreases in p-AKT and BCL2 protein levels . Critically, these effects were reversed by the AKT activator SC79 , confirming pathway specificity.
Conclusion: Our work connects the traditional use of this extract with molecular evidence, suggesting that EGb761 is a clinically translatable AKT /BCL2 inhibitor for CRC.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].