| Literature DB >> 25793004 |
Juntian Liu1, Baixiao Zhao1, Yingxue Cui2, Yuhai Huang1, Chang Huang1, Jian Huang1, Li Han1, Lixing Lao3.
Abstract
Purpose. To determine whether moxibustion influences the learning and memory behavior of ApoE-/- male mice, and investigate the mechanism of moxibustion on the alteration of oxidized proteins (glial fibrillary acidic protein, β-amyloid) in hippocampus. Methods. Thirty-three ApoE-/- mice were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 11/group): moxibustion, sham moxibustion, and no treatment control. Wild-type C57BL/6 mice (n = 13) were used for normal control. Moxibustion was performed with Shenque (RN8) moxibustion for 20 minutes per day, 6 days/week for 12 weeks. In sham control, the procedure was similar except burning of the moxa stick. Behavioral tests (step-down test and Morris water maze task) were conducted in the 13th week. The mice were then sacrificed and the tissues were harvested for immune-histochemical staining. Results. In the step-down test, the moxibustion group had shorter reaction time in training record and committed less mistakes compared to sham control. In immune-histochemical study, the moxibustion group expressed lower level of GFAP and less aggregation of β-amyloid in the hippocampus than the sham control. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that moxibustion may enhance learning capability of ApoE-/- mice. The mechanism may be via inhibiting oxidized proteins (GFAP and β-amyloid) in astrocytes.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25793004 PMCID: PMC4352425 DOI: 10.1155/2015/804804
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Experimental procedures.
Figure 2Intervening measures.
Latency to reach the insulative platform and times of jumping out of the platform.
| Normal control group ( | No treatment control group ( | Moxibustion group ( | Sham moxibustion group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training latencya | 5.77 ± 4.96* | 74.68 ± 55.95 | 4.93 ± 2.54△ | 71.02 ± 84.51 |
| Training mistakesa | 3.69 ± 1.70 | 3.5 ± 2.59 | 0.33 ± 0.50△ | 3.67 ± 2.34 |
| Retention latencyb | 118.50(122.55)* | 2.55 (37.8) | 180 (14.5) | 180 (51.525) |
| Retention mistakesb | 1(1)* | 0 (0.5) | 0 (0.5) | 0 (1) |
aMean ± standard deviation; bmedian (interquartile range). * P < 0.05 versus the no treatment control group; △ P < 0.05 versus sham moxibustion group.
Figure 3The performance of 4 groups in Morris water maze task. (a) Each point represents group mean latency (s) to reach the hidden platform in four groups during visible platform training. (b) Bar chart shows the percentage of time spent in each quadrant within 60 s during absence platform spatial memory test. (c) The Morris water maze pool is divided into 4 quadrants. The yellow circle represents the platform which is placed in training quadrant.
Figure 4Hippocampus glial fibrillary acidic protein. (a) The pictures reflect the expression of GFAP in 4 groups (original magnification ×400). (A) represents normal control group (4.33 ± 1.52), (B) represents no treatment control group (13.90 ± 4.06), (C) represents sham moxibustion group (16.82 ± 5.23), and (D) represents moxibustion group (4.85 ± 1.89). Blue arrows identify examples of clusters of GFAP positive cells. (b) Bar graph represents GFAP immunoreactivity in the hippocampus CA3. * P < 0.05 versus no treatment control group; Δ P < 0.05 versus sham moxibustion group.
Figure 5Hippocampus β-amyloid plaque. (a) The pictures reflect the β-amyloid plaque expression in 4 groups under Congo red straining (original magnification ×400). (A) represents normal control group (101.25 ± 82.68), (B) represents no treatment control group (37661.70 ± 12349.53), (C) represents sham moxibustion group (36281.30 ± 12104.97), and (D) represents moxibustion group (947.70 ± 768.70). β-Amyloid appears as a cloud mass and shows strongly Congo red positive (B, C). (b) The graph shows different levels of β-amyloid; thus it can be seen that normal control group got less area of Congo staining for β-amyloid than that of no treatment control group. Same situation occurs between sham moxibustion group and moxibustion group. * P < 0.05 versus no treatment control group; Δ P < 0.05 versus sham moxibustion group.
Figure 6Targeting the NADPH by evoking oxidative stress in astrocytes.