| Literature DB >> 25810746 |
Wing-Sum Siu1, Chun-Hay Ko2, Ka-Wing Lam3, Elaine Wat2, Wai-Ting Shum2, Clara Bik-San Lau2, Kam-Ming Ko4, Leung-Kim Hung5, David Tai-Wai Lau6, Ping-Chung Leung1.
Abstract
A topically used Chinese herbal paste, namely, CDNR, was designed to facilitate fracture healing which is usually not addressed in general hospital care. From our in vitro studies, CDNR significantly inhibited the release of nitric oxide from RAW264.7 cells by 51 to 77%. This indicated its anti-inflammatory effect. CDNR also promoted the growth of bone cells by stimulating the proliferation of UMR106 cells up to 18%. It also increased the biomechanical strength of the healing bone in a drill-hole defect rat model by 16.5% significantly. This result revealed its in vivo efficacy on facilitation of bone healing. Furthermore, the detection of the chemical markers of CDNR in the skin and muscle of the treatment area demonstrated its transdermal properties. However, CDNR did not affect the bone turnover markers in serum of the rats. With its anti-inflammatory and bone formation properties, CDNR is found effective in promoting bone healing.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25810746 PMCID: PMC4355818 DOI: 10.1155/2015/905270
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Chemical composition of CDNR paste for animal studies.
| Herbal source | Name of chemical marker | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Carthami Flos (C) | Hydroxysafflor yellow A (HYA) | 2.14 |
|
| ||
| Dipsaci Radix (D) | Asperosaponin VI (ASP) | 19.23 |
|
| ||
| Notoginseng Rhizoma (N) | Ginsenoside Rg1 (Rg1) | 2.00 |
|
| ||
| Rhei Rhizoma (R) | Emodin (EMO) | 0.96 |
Figure 1Anti-inflammatory effects of CDNR. (a, b) Effect of aqueous (CDNR(aq)) and ethanol (CDNR(e)) component of CDNR on nitric oxide (NO) production by RAW264.7 induced by LPS; (c, d, and e) Effect of CDNR(e) on TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-1β production by RAW264.7. Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation (error bar). * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, and *** P < 0.001 versus Control (0 μg/mL).
Figure 2Osteogenic effect of CDNR on bone cells. (a) UMR106 proliferation at different concentration of CDNR assessed by BrdU assay; (b) UMR106 viability at different concentration of CDNR assessed by MTT assay. (CDNR(aq), CDNR(e)) Aqueous and ethanol component of CDNR. Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation (error bar). ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001 versus Control (0 μg/mL).
Change of bone volume of the drill-hole bone defect.
| Control (mm3) | CDNR (mm3) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day −1 | 20.223 ± 1.589 | 19.509 ± 2.111 | 0.457 |
| Day 0 | 15.045 ± 1.696 | 15.427 ± 2.247 | 0.707 |
| Day 14 | 18.249 ± 1.766 | 18.091 ± 2.413 | 0.883 |
| Day 28 | 17.582 ± 1.801 | 17.231 ± 2.180 | 0.730 |
| Day 42 | 18.020 ± 1.949 | 17.111 ± 1.826 | 0.352 |
There was no significant difference in the bone volume (mm3) of the drill-hole bone defect in tibial metaphysis measured by using micro-CT between Control and CDNR at each time point. Day −1 and Day 0: measurement prior to and right after the drill-hole bone defect creation, respectively. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Change of biochemical markers in serum after drill-hole bone defects had been created.
| BALP (U/L) | Dpd (nmol/L) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | CDNR |
| Control | CDNR |
| |
| Day −1 | 3.582 ± 1.207 | 3.473 ± 1.391 | 0.882 | 3.665 ± 1.421 | 2.862 ± 0.577 | 0.229 |
| Day 14 | 4.887 ± 1.610 | 4.606 ± 1.649 | 0.762 | 2.964 ± 1.118 | 2.614 ± 0.710 | 0.532 |
| Day 28 | 5.909 ± 2.235 | 5.120 ± 2.458 | 0.557 | 2.761 ± 1.657 | 2.303 ± 0.624 | 0.540 |
| Day 42 | 4.991 ± 1.605 | 5.283 ± 2.153 | 0.785 | 2.791 ± 1.586 | 1.891 ± 0.411 | 0.208 |
There was no significant difference in the serum biochemical markers between Control and CDNR at each time point. Day −1: blood was collected prior to the drill-hole bone defect creation; BALP: bone-specific alkaline phosphatase; Dpd: deoxypyridinoline. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 3Biomechanical properties of femur with drill-hole bone defect. (a) Yield strength; (b) work done at yield strength. Data are expressed as mean and standard error of mean (error bar). * P < 0.05 versus Control.
Figure 4Concentration of the chemical markers of CDNR remained in the soft tissues of the rat. (a) Skin; (b) muscle. Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation (error bar). Rg1: ginsenoside Rg1; Rb1: ginsenoside Rb1; ASP: asperosaponin VI; OA: oleanolic acid; EMO: emodin; RHE: rhein; HYA: hydroxysafflor yellow A; KAE: kaempferol.