| Literature DB >> 24641917 |
Kun Lu, Shuanshuan Xie, Shilong Han, Jidong Zhang, Xinwen Chang, Jin Chao, Qingqing Huang, Qing Yuan, Haiyan Lin, Lei Xu, Changxing Shen, Min Tan, Shen Qu, Changhui Wang, Xiaolian Song1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the preparation of nano emodin transfersome (NET) and investigate its effect on mRNA expression of adipose triglyceride lipase (ATGL) and G0/G1 switch gene 2 (G0S2) in adipose tissue of diet-induced obese rats.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24641917 PMCID: PMC3994574 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5876-12-72
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Figure 1The molecular formula picture of emodin.
Figure 2The picture of the traditional chinese herb emodin ingredient.
Figure 3The standard curve of emodin by UV method.
Factors and levels of the orthogonal test
| 1 | 1:1 | 10 | 6.8 | 15 |
| 2 | 1:2 | 20 | 7.0 | 20 |
| 3 | 1:4 | 30 | 7.2 | 25 |
Results of L (3 ) orthogonal experiment of prescription
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 45.56 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 53.12 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 61.34 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 58.91 |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 70.78 |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 63.71 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 64.48 |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 52.01 |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 48.91 |
| K1 | 53.34 | 56.32 | 53.76 | 55.01 | |
| K2 | 64.47 | 58.64 | 53.65 | 60.44 | |
| K3 | 55.13 | 57.99 | 65.53 | 57.42 | |
| R | 11.13 | 2.32 | 11.89 | 5.35 |
Figure 4TEM photograph of nano emodin transfersomes.
Figure 5Size distribution of nano emodin transfersomes.
Figure 6Zeta potential and mobility distribution of NET.
Figure 7Measurement results of EOS Plot.
Entrapment efficiency (EE) and particle size of transfersomes under different conditions (mean ± SD)
| 0 | 297.4 | 68.83 | 297.4 | 68.83 |
| 1 | 463.3 | 53.46 | 348.6 | 67.80 |
| 2 | 675.4 | 41.09 | 376.8 | 66.04 |
| 3 | 713.9 | 34.78 | 383.7 | 65.31 |
| 4 | - | 21.17 | 390.1 | 62.68 |
Figure 8Body weight changes after high-fat diet. Note: △P < 0.01, as compared with the control group.
Comparison of general obesity parameters among groups (± S)
| Control | 10 | 222.89 ± 5.28 | 327.33 ± 18.18 | 13.46 ± 5.58 | 6.89 ± 1.86 | 2.37 ± 0.44 |
| Model | 9 | 295.34 ± 16.61△ | 442.44 ± 31.23△ | 12.84 ± 1.71 | 9.67 ± 1.76△ | 2.42 ± 0.40 |
| Massage | 10 | 309.04 ± 30.18△ | 423.13 ± 58.99△ | 12.05 ± 1.56 | 9.94 ± 2.40△ | 2.44 ± 0.49 |
| Oral | 10 | 314.83 ± 15.25△ | 378.28 ± 28.79△▲☆ | 13.45 ± 1.39 | 8.16 ± 1.87△▲☆ | 2.35 ± 0.37 |
| NET | 10 | 305.06 ± 24.10△ | 383.175 ± 33.65△▲☆ | 12.82 ± 1.59 | 9.91 ± 2.79△★ | 2.38 ± 0.99 |
Notes: △P < 0.05, compared with the control group; ▲P < 0.05, compared with the model group; ☆P < 0.05, compared with the Massage group; ★P < 0.05, compared with the Oral group.
Comparison of TG, TC, HDL-C and LDL-C among groups (± S)
| Control | 10 | 1.01 ± 0.19 | 2.15 ± 0.23 | 1.58 ± 0.24 | 0.52 ± 0.21 |
| Model | 9 | 1.31 ± 0.22△ | 2.18 ± 0.43 | 1.41 ± 0.32 | 0.49 ± 0.29 |
| Massage | 10 | 1.23 ± 0.12△ | 1.98 ± 0.31 | 1.43 ± 0.28 | 0.57 ± 0.28 |
| Oral | 10 | 0.86 ± 0.27▲☆ | 2.04 ± 0.40 | 2.76 ± 0.38△▲☆ | 0.47 ± 0.20 |
| NET | 10 | 0.99 ± 0.27▲☆ | 2.01 ± 0.20 | 2.67 ± 0.31△▲☆ | 0.53 ± 0.21 |
Notes: △P < 0.05, compared with the control group; ▲P < 0.05, compared with the model group; ☆P < 0.05, compared with the Massage group.
Figure 9Histological changes of epididymal adipose tissue in rats (HE Stain, × 400).
Comparison of equivalent diameter, perimeter and area of adipocytes among proups (± S)
| Control | 10 | 54.81 ± 9.78 | 180.42 ± 27.75 | 2304.43 ± 763.34 |
| Model | 9 | 79.87 ± 14.67△ | 297.32 ± 54.60△ | 5134.45 ± 1689.43△ |
| Massage | 10 | 75.61 ± 12.43△ | 283.06 ± 40.60△ | 4912.98 ± 1588.21△ |
| Oral | 10 | 52.87 ± 18.45▲☆ | 171.32 ± 35.78▲☆ | 2237.12 ± 687.02▲☆ |
| NET | 10 | 59.98 ± 16.65▲☆ | 225.21 ± 65.87▲☆ | 2982.98 ± 1931.98▲☆ |
Notes: △P < 0.01 compared with the control group; ▲P < 0.05 compared with the model group; ☆P < 0.05, compared with the Massage group.
Figure 10Histomorphological observation on the liver tissues (HE Stain, × 200 and × 400).
Comparison of ATGL and G0S2 protein expression in the adipose tissue
| Control | 10 | 0.590 ± 0.011 | 0.716 ± 0.022 |
| Model | 9 | 0.437 ± 0.020△ | 0.918 ± 0.028△ |
| Massage | 10 | 0.552 ± 0.023▲ | 0.732 ± 0.025▲ |
| Oral | 10 | 0.702 ± 0.016△▲☆ | 0.667 ± 0.018△▲ |
| NET | 10 | 0.705 ± 0.031△▲☆ | 0.671 ± 0.035△▲ |
Notes: △P < 0.05 compared with the control group; ▲P < 0.05 compared with the model group; ☆P < 0.05, compared with the Massage group.
Figure 11ATGL and G0S2 protein expression in the adipose tissue by Western-blot.
Figure 12Comparison of ATGL and G0S2 protein expression in the adipose tissue. Notes: △P < 0.05 compared with the control group; ▲P < 0.05 compared with the model group; ☆P < 0.05, compared with the Massage group.