| Literature DB >> 21716623 |
An-Bin Zhao1, Bin Yu, Xian-Lin Wu, Ke-Jian Cao, En-Qing Li, Qing-Mei Li, Xiao-Yin Chen.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order to observe the protective therapeutic action and mechanism of Liuwei Dihuang Decoction, Buzhong Yiqi Decoction, and Compound Danshen Decoction on Myelosuppression induced by cyclophosphamide.Entities:
Keywords: Buzhong Yiqi decoction; Liuwei Dihuang decoction; cell cycle; compound Danshen decoction; myelosuppression; thrombopoietin; thrombopoietin receptor
Year: 2011 PMID: 21716623 PMCID: PMC3113352 DOI: 10.4103/0973-1296.80671
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmacogn Mag ISSN: 0973-1296 Impact factor: 1.085
Primer sequences and products length
| Gene | Primer sequence (5’–3’) | Products length (bp) |
|---|---|---|
| TPO | F: CCAGACGGAACAGAGCAAG | 82 |
| R: CTGTCCTCGTGCTGCCAT | ||
| c-Mpl | F: CCTGCACTGGAGGGAGGTCT | 135 |
| R: GGCTCCAGCACCTTCCAGTC | ||
| beta- Actin | F: CCAGCCTTCCTTCTTGGGTAT | 97 |
| R: CATAGAGGTCTTTACGGATGTCAAC |
Figure 1Hematopoietic stem progenitor cells count in each group by flow cytometry detection (a) Gate establishment (b) Negative control group (c) NR group (d) MD group (e) LW group (f) BZ group
Hematopoietic stem progenitor cells count in each group
| Group | n | 14th day | 28th day |
|---|---|---|---|
| NR | 10 | 3.69 ± 1.82 | 8.27 ± 4.50 |
| MD | 10 | 2.76 ± 1.07 | 4.95 ± 2.33 |
| BZ | 10 | 4.41 ± 1.55 | 7.19 ± 3.89 |
| LW | 10 | 3.46 ± 0.94 | 8.05 ± 3.40 |
| DS | 10 | 2.15 ± 0.94 | 5.87 ± 0.91 |
P < 0.05
P < 0.01, compared with NR group
P < 0.05
P < 0.01, compared with MD group
Cell cycle analysis on the 14th day
| Group | n | G1 (%) | S (%) | G2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NR | 20 | 64.250 ± 3.0843 | 32.773 ± 4.4371 | 4.700±1.0488 |
| MD | 20 | 67.440 ± 8.4587 | 28.800 ± 9.8514 | 2.490±1.4910 |
| BZ | 20 | 49.360 ± 6.8959 | 43.850 ± 8.2199 | 6.790±2.4520 |
| LW | 20 | 52.410 ± 7.4445 | 39.450 ± 10.2084 | 6.920±2.6641 |
| DS | 20 | 53.870 ± 10.0298 | 36.676 ± 10.2056 | 6.690±3.6483 |
P< 0.05
P < 0.01, compared with NR group
P < 0.05
P< 0.01, compared with MD group
Cell cycle analysis on the 28th day
| Group | n | G1 (%) | S (%) | G2 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NR | 10 | 76.850 ± 2.5295 | 21.867 ± 2.5544 | 1.810 ± 0.5174 |
| MD | 10 | 72.940 ± 5.0943 | 24.000 ± 4.1192 | 2.390 ± 1.1551 |
| BZ | 10 | 73.720 ± 3.1590 | 24.780 ± 3.7626 | 1.960 ± 0.9524 |
| LW | 10 | 72.940 ± 3.1053 | 25.940 ± 5.5580 | 1.760 ± 1.0265 |
| DS | 10 | 73.942 ± 3.7232 | 24.550 ± 4.0700 | 2.470 ± 0.8247 |
P< 0.05
P < 0.01, compared with NR group, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 compared with MD group,
Figure 2Cell cycle detection by flow cytometry on the 14th day (a) NR group (b) MD group (c) BZ group (d) LW group
Figure 3Cell cycle detection by flow cytometry on the 28th day (a) NR group (b) MD group (c) BZ group (d) LW group
Thrombopoietin mRNA expression level in each group
| Group | n | 14th day | 28th day |
|---|---|---|---|
| NR | 10 | 1.899 ± 0.505 | 2.089 ± 0.914 |
| MD | 10 | 0.465 ± 0.383 | 0.454 ± 0.237 |
| BZ | 10 | 2.583 ± 1.028 | 3.146 ± 1.852 |
| LW | 10 | 3.869 ± 1.552 | 7.056 ± 1.611 |
| DS | 10 | 1.259 ± 1.081 | 0.842 ± 0.324 |
P< 0.05
P < 0.01, compared with NR group
P < 0.05
P < 0.01, compared with MD group
C-Mpl mRNA expression level in each group
| Group | n | 14th day | 28th day |
|---|---|---|---|
| NR | 10 | 0.900 ± 0.312 | 0.671 ± 0.277 |
| MD | 10 | 0.842 ± 0.363 | 0.465 ± 0.366 |
| BZ | 10 | 3.192 ± 1.328 | 4.397 ± 1.488 |
| LW | 10 | 1.952 ± 0.499 | 2.645 ± 1.393 |
| DS | 10 | 1.207 ± 0.891 | 1.010 ± 0.490 |
P< 0.05
P < 0.01, compared with NR group
P < 0.05
P < 0.01, compared with MD group