| Literature DB >> 24876871 |
Xiao-Yan Wang1, Zhi-Ling Yu2, Si-Yuan Pan1, Yi Zhang1, Nan Sun1, Pei-Li Zhu1, Zhan-Hong Jia1, Shu-Feng Zhou3, Kam-Ming Ko4.
Abstract
SCHISANDRAE FRUCTUS (Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24876871 PMCID: PMC4021675 DOI: 10.1155/2014/472638
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1The design of the current study. SF: Schisandra Fructus; EtSF-S: ethanolic extract of SF seed; EtSF-P: ethanolic extract of SF pulp; EtSF-S/P: ethanolic extract of SF seed/pulp; TC: total cholesterol; TG: triglyceride; LDL: low-density lipoprotein; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; N-HDL: non-HDL; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; HCLD: hypercholesterolemic diet; ND: normal diet.
Effects of EtSF supplementation on serum lipid profiles in normal and HCL mice.
| Groups | Drug (%) | TC (mmol/L) | TG (mmol/L) | HDL (mmol/L) | LDL (mmol/L) | HDL/LDL | LDL/HDL | N-HDL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ND-fed mice | ||||||||
| ND | — | 3.39 ± 0.10 | 1.24 ± 0.06 | 3.57 ± 0.12 | 0.44 ± 0.02 | 8.18 ± 0.35 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.65 ± 0.02 |
| ND/EtSF-S | 1 | 3.37 ± 0.14 | 1.29 ± 0.08 | 3.66 ± 0.19 | 0.45 ± 0.02 | 8.27 ± 0.57 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.53 ± 0.05* |
| 9 | 3.25 ± 0.12 | 1.05 ± 0.15 | 3.58 ± 0.14 | 0.45 ± 0.03 | 8.07 ± 0.43 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.46 ± 0.05** | |
| ND/FF | 0.1 | 2.32 ± 0.10** | 0.60 ± 0.03** | 2.36 ± 0.14** | 0.40 ± 0.03 | 6.12 ± 0.38** | 0.17 ± 0.01** | 0.68 ± 0.03 |
| ND | — | 4.23 ± 0.25 | 1.81 ± 0.05 | 3.64 ± 0.18 | 0.47 ± 0.03 | 7.90 ± 0.38 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.71 ± 0.12 |
| ND/EtSF-P | 1 | 4.28 ± 0.16 | 1.81 ± 0.06 | 3.66 ± 0.17 | 0.49 ± 0.03 | 7.62 ± 0.42 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.71 ± 0.09 |
| 9 | 4.44 ± 0.19 | 1.78 ± 0.17 | 3.72 ± 0.14 | 0.62 ± 0.05* | 6.25 ± 0.57* | 0.17 ± 0.02* | 0.83 ± 0.09 | |
| ND | — | 4.28 ± 0.14 | 1.82 ± 0.18 | 3.67 ± 0.16 | 0.59 ± 0.04 | 6.44 ± 0.42 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.61 ± 0.04 |
| ND/EtSF-S/P | 1 | 4.31 ± 0.17 | 1.93 ± 0.19 | 3.52 ± 0.14 | 0.78 ± 0.04** | 4.62 ± 0.20** | 0.22 ± 0.01** | 0.78 ± 0.06* |
| 9 | 4.67 ± 0.15 | 2.09 ± 0.11 | 4.09 ± 0.18 | 0.74 ± 0.03** | 5.52 ± 0.12* | 0.18 ± 0.004 | 0.58 ± 0.05 | |
| HCLD-fed mice | ||||||||
| ND | — | 4.15 ± 0.16 | 1.79 ± 0.10 | 3.70 ± 0.19 | 0.56 ± 0.04 | 6.71 ± 0.33 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.45 ± 0.05 |
| HCLD | — | 5.59 ± 0.27** | 1.24 ± 0.06** | 3.60 ± 0.17 | 2.21 ± 0.12** | 1.64 ± 0.06** | 0.62 ± 0.02** | 1.99 ± 0.15** |
| HCLD/EtSF-S | 1 | 5.74 ± 0.23 | 0.97 ± 0.05†† | 3.57 ± 0.09 | 2.38 ± 0.13 | 1.52 ± 0.06 | 0.67 ± 0.03 | 2.18 ± 0.17 |
| 3 | 5.68 ± 0.14 | 1.08 ± 0.05 | 3.70 ± 0.08 | 2.23 ± 0.08 | 1.67 ± 0.05 | 0.60 ± 0.02 | 1.98 ± 0.10 | |
| 9 | 5.68 ± 0.16 | 0.96 ± 0.07†† | 3.68 ± 0.09 | 2.31 ± 0.13 | 1.63 ± 0.08 | 0.63 ± 0.03 | 2.00 ± 0.12 | |
| HCLD/FF | 0.1 | 3.95 ± 0.22†† | 0.77 ± 0.04†† | 3.34 ± 0.23 | 0.76 ± 0.07†† | 4.62 ± 0.31†† | 0.23 ± 0.02†† | 0.61 ± 0.06†† |
| ND | — | 4.23 ± 0.25 | 1.81 ± 0.05 | 3.64 ± 0.18 | 0.47 ± 0.03 | 7.90 ± 0.38 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.71 ± 0.12 |
| HCLD | — | 5.06 ± 0.23* | 1.01 ± 0.06** | 3.22 ± 0.11 | 1.55 ± 0.05** | 2.05 ± 0.11** | 0.50 ± 0.02** | 1.95 ± 0.15** |
| HCLD/EtSF-P | 1 | 4.98 ± 0.15 | 1.04 ± 0.08 | 3.23 ± 0.09 | 1.61 ± 0.07 | 2.03 ± 0.08 | 0.50 ± 0.02 | 1.75 ± 0.13 |
| 3 | 5.61 ± 0.20 | 0.92 ± 0.08 | 3.60 ± 0.14 | 1.74 ± 0.09 | 2.03 ± 0.09 | 0.50 ± 0.02 | 2.01 ± 0.10 | |
| 9 | 6.38 ± 0.20†† | 0.76 ± 0.06†† | 3.70 ± 0.14† | 2.28 ± 0.09†† | 1.59 ± 0.07†† | 0.64 ± 0.03†† | 2.69 ± 0.13†† | |
| ND | — | 4.28 ± 0.14 | 1.82 ± 0.18 | 3.67 ± 0.16 | 0.59 ± 0.04 | 6.44 ± 0.42 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.61 ± 0.04 |
| HCLD | — | 5.10 ± 0.18** | 0.73 ± 0.06** | 3.74 ± 0.13 | 1.97 ± 0.11** | 1.95 ± 0.12** | 0.53 ± 0.04** | 1.35 ± 0.13** |
| HCLD/EtSF-S/P | 1 | 6.40 ± 0.16†† | 0.69 ± 0.07 | 4.26 ± 0.09†† | 2.88 ± 0.11†† | 1.50 ± 0.07†† | 0.68 ± 0.03†† | 2.14 ± 0.12†† |
| 3 | 6.34 ± 0.31†† | 0.57 ± 0.04† | 4.01 ± 0.19 | 2.80 ± 0.16†† | 1.45 ± 0.07†† | 0.70 ± 0.03†† | 2.33 ± 0.18†† | |
| 9 | 7.32 ± 0.23†† | 0.60 ± 0.05 | 4.38 ± 0.12†† | 3.41 ± 0.16†† | 1.30 ± 0.06†† | 0.78 ± 0.04†† | 2.94 ± 0.20†† |
Mice were fed with normal diet (ND) or hypercholesterolemic diet (HCLD) without and with the ethanolic extract of Schisandrae Fructus (SF) pulp, seed, or their combination (namely, EtSF-P, EtSF-S, and EtSF-P/S, resp.) and fenofibrate (FF) at the indicated doses (%, w/w), which was estimated on the basis of crude herbal material, for 10 days. Then serum total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and non-HDL (N-HDL) levels, as well as HDL/LDL and LDL/HDL ratios, were measured. HCLD was constituted of 1% cholesterol and 0.3% bile salt (w/w). Values given are the means ± SEM, with n = 10. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 versus ND; † P < 0.05, †† P < 0.01 versus HCLD. Statistical significant differences were determined using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test or post hoc analysis.
Figure 2Effects of EtSF supplementation on hepatic lipid/glucose contents in normal and HCL mice. Experimental details were described in Table 1. Mice were fed with ND and HCLD without or with EtSF or FF supplementation, as indicated in the figure. Ten days later, hepatic TC (a), TG (b), and glucose (c) contents were measured. Values given are the means ± SEM, with n = 10. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 versus mice fed with ND and † P < 0.05, †† P < 0.01 versus mice fed with HCLD alone. Statistically significant differences were determined using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test or post hoc analysis.
Figure 3Effects of EtSF supplementation on biliary and fecal cholesterol contents in normal and HCL mice. Experimental details were described in Table 1. Mice were fed with ND and HCLD without or with EtSF or FF supplementation, as indicated in the figure. Ten days later, biliary (a) and fecal (b) TC contents were measured. Values given are the means ± SEM, with n = 10. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 versus mice fed with ND and † P < 0.05, †† P < 0.01 versus mice fed with HCLD alone. Statistically significant differences were determined using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test or post hoc analysis.
Figure 4Effects of EtSF supplementation on hepatic index and function in normal and HCL mice. Experimental details were described in Table 1. Mice were fed with ND and HCLD without or with EtSF or FF supplementation, as indicated in the figure. Ten days later, hepatic index (a) and serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) activity (b) were measured. Values given are the means ± SEM, with n = 10. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 versus mice fed with ND and † P < 0.05, †† P < 0.01 versus mice fed with HCLD alone. Statistically significant differences were determined using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test or post hoc analysis.
Effects of EtSF supplementation on body weight and food/drug intake in normal and HCL mice.
| Groups | Drug concentration | Body weight (g) in D 1 | Body weight (g) in D 10 | Food intake (g/kg/day) | Drug intake (g/kg/day) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ND-fed mice | |||||
| ND | — | 18.55 ± 0.09 | 28.70 ± 0.53 | 148.54 | — |
| ND/EtSF-S | 1 | 18.58 ± 0.09 | 28.10 ± 0.45 | 147.80 | 1.48 |
| 9 | 18.56 ± 0.09 | 28.24 ± 0.53 | 151.48 | 13.63 | |
| ND/FF | 0.1 | 18.52 ± 0.11 | 26.36 ± 0.65* | 145.27 | 0.15 |
| ND | — | 18.14 ± 0.18 | 28.02 ± 0.45 | 158.60 | — |
| ND/EtSF-P | 1 | 18.08 ± 0.18 | 26.55 ± 0.52* | 147.39 | 1.47 |
| 9 | 18.03 ± 0.19 | 26.38 ± 0.41* | 165.29 | 14.88 | |
| ND | 18.52 ± 0.10 | 28.02 ± 0.51 | 154.29 | — | |
| ND/EtSF-S/P | 1 | 18.48 ± 0.11 | 27.87 ± 0.50 | 146.88 | 1.47 |
| 9 | 18.55 ± 0.11 | 28.42 ± 0.45 | 145.30 | 13.08 | |
| HCLD-fed mice | |||||
| ND | — | 18.60 ± 0.16 | 28.48 ± 0.50 | 156.21 | — |
| HCLD | — | 18.68 ± 0.18 | 28.48 ± 0.49 | 143.35 | — |
| HCLD/EtSF-S | 1 | 18.55 ± 0.17 | 29.49 ± 0.53 | 145.75 | 1.46 |
| 3 | 18.65 ± 0.16 | 28.48 ± 0.72 | 141.09 | 4.23 | |
| 9 | 18.62 ± 0.17 | 28.07 ± 0.47 | 141.31 | 12.72 | |
| HCLD/FF | 0.1 | 18.67 ± 0.19 | 23.81 ± 0.62†† | 132.00 | 0.13 |
| ND | — | 18.14 ± 0.18 | 28.02 ± 0.45 | 158.60 | — |
| HCLD | — | 18.63 ± 0.22 | 27.74 ± 0.59 | 159.60 | — |
| HCLD/EtSF-P | 1 | 18.92 ± 0.34 | 28.17 ± 0.62 | 164.80 | 1.65 |
| 3 | 18.45 ± 0.25 | 28.55 ± 0.79 | 182.16 | 5.47 | |
| 9 | 18.41 ± 0.29 | 27.06 ± 0.45 | 171.46 | 15.43 | |
| ND | — | 18.52 ± 0.10 | 28.02 ± 0.51 | 154.29 | — |
| HCLD | — | 19.00 ± 0.26 | 27.37 ± 0.48 | 157.86 | — |
| HCLD/EtSF-S/P | 1 | 18.88 ± 0.24 | 29.04 ± 0.92 | 167.58 | 1.68 |
| 3 | 19.14 ± 0.30 | 28.17 ± 0.47 | 172.16 | 5.17 | |
| 9 | 18.90 ± 0.30 | 27.47 ± 0.42 | 166.41 | 14.98 |
Experimental details were described in Table 1. The dosages (g/kg/day) based on crude herbal material were determined with the amount of ingested diet (g/kg/day) and drug concentrations in the diet. Values given are the means ± SEM, with n = 10. *P < 0.05 versus mice fed with ND; †† P < 0.01 versus mice fed with HCLD. Statistical significant differences were determined using a one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test or post hoc analysis.
A summary of results from the study.
| EtSF-S dietary supplement | EtSF-P dietary supplement | EtSF-S/P dietary supplement | FF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Serum TC | — | — | — | ↓ |
| TG | — | — | — | ↓ |
| HDL | — | — | — | ↓ |
| LDL | — | ↑ | ↑ | — |
| ALT activity | — | — | — | ↑ |
| Hepatic TC | ↓ | — | ↓ | ↓ |
| TG | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ |
| Glucose | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ |
| Index | — | — | ↑ | ↑ |
| Biliary TC | — | — | — | ↓ |
| Fecal TC | — | ↑ | — | — |
| Body weight gain | — | ↓ | — | ↓ |
|
| ||||
| Serum TC (↑) | — | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ |
| TG (↓) | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ |
| HDL (—) | — | ↑ | ↑ | — |
| LDL (↑) | — | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ |
| ALT activity (↑) | — | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ |
| Hepatic TC (↑) | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ |
| TG (↑) | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ |
| Glucose (↑) | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ |
| Index (↑) | — | — | — | ↑ |
| Biliary TC (↑) | ↑ | — | ↑(1%) ↓(9%) | ↑ |
| Fecal TC (↑) | — | — | ↑ | — |
| Body weight gain (—) | — | — | — | ↓ |
↑: increased or elevated; ↓: decreased or inhibited; —: unaltered.
TC: total cholesterol; TG: triglyceride; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; LDL: low-density lipoprotein; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; FF: fenofibrate.