| Literature DB >> 25197314 |
Lijian Zhang1, Huizhen Wang1, Zhenjun Huang1, Xian Shi2, Sen Hu3, Ingrid Gaischek4, Daniela Litscher4, Lu Wang4, Gerhard Litscher4.
Abstract
We observed the inhibitive effect of electroacupuncture (EA) at Zusanli on inflammatory mediators of postoperative intra-abdominal adhesions to find out the relationship between EA and the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway. Sixty-four rats were divided into 8 groups (A-H, each = 8): A = sham control; B = abdominal adhesions model; C = abdominal adhesions plus EA; D = sham acupoint control; E = abdominal adhesions plus vagotomy; F = abdominal adhesions plus EA after vagotomy; G = abdominal adhesions plus α-bungarotoxin (BGT); and H = abdominal adhesions plus EA after α-BGT. α-BGT (1 μg/kg) was injected into the abdominal cavity after surgery, and the bilateral celiac vagotomy was done during the surgery. On the third day the levels of inflammatory mediators (TNF-α, nitric oxide (NO), and nitric oxide synthase (NOS)) in tissues were evaluated. The abdominal adhesion groups developed obvious edema. Compared with sham control, the abdominal adhesion resulted in a significant elevation of inflammatory mediators. EA lowered the elevated levels of inflammatory mediators significantly; EA plus α-BGT and vagotomy showed less anti-inflammatory effects. The activation of the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway might be one of the mechanisms of EA at Zusanli acupoints to exert the anti-inflammatory effects.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25197314 PMCID: PMC4145794 DOI: 10.1155/2014/950326
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Comparison of cecum TNF-α levels [(), Pg/gprot].
| Groups | Number of animals | TNF- |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 8 | 79.73 ± 20.44 | — | 0.0000 |
| Group B | 8 | 648.30 ± 114.06 | 0.0000 | 0.0366 |
| Group C | 8 | 509.29 ± 126.27 | 0.0000 | — |
| Group D | 8 | 662.12 ± 100.88 | 0.0000 | 0.0181 |
| Group E | 8 | 713.92 ± 114.83 | 0.0000 | 0.0044 |
| Group F | 8 | 652.43 ± 136.54 | 0.0000 | 0.0471 |
| Group G | 8 | 698.15 ± 122.76 | 0.0000 | 0.0089 |
| Group H | 8 | 664.26 ± 125.52 | 0.0000 | 0.0274 |
Comparison of cecum NO levels [(), Mmol/gprot].
| Groups | Number of animals | NO |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 8 | 1.06 ± 0.28 | — | 0.0000 |
| Group B | 8 | 2.69 ± 0.44 | 0.0000 | 0.0286 |
| Group C | 8 | 2.28 ± 0.18 | 0.0000 | — |
| Group D | 8 | 2.67 ± 0.37 | 0.0000 | 0.0179 |
| Group E | 8 | 2.81 ± 0.36 | 0.0000 | 0.0023 |
| Group F | 8 | 2.74 ± 0.29 | 0.0000 | 0.0019 |
| Group G | 8 | 2.66 ± 0.25 | 0.0000 | 0.0036 |
| Group H | 8 | 2.62 ± 0.17 | 0.0000 | 0.0017 |
Comparison of cecum NOS activity [(), U/gprot].
| Groups | Number of animals | NOS |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 8 | 1.11 ± 0.26 | — | 0.0000 |
| Group B | 8 | 2.35 ± 0.21 | 0.0000 | 0.0215 |
| Group C | 8 | 2.00 ± 0.32 | 0.0000 | — |
| Group D | 8 | 2.46 ± 0.42 | 0.0000 | 0.0273 |
| Group E | 8 | 2.52 ± 0.41 | 0.0000 | 0.0134 |
| Group F | 8 | 2.40 ± 0.18 | 0.0000 | 0.0081 |
| Group G | 8 | 2.42 ± 0.28 | 0.0000 | 0.0144 |
| Group H | 8 | 2.38 ± 0.26 | 0.0000 | 0.0207 |