| Literature DB >> 25886942 |
Jianlu Wang1, Lan Wang2, Hongjun Yang3, Yun You4, Haiyu Xu5, Leilei Gong6, Xiaojie Yin7, Wandan Wang8, Shuangrong Gao9, Long Cheng10,11, Rixin Liang12, Fulong Liao13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Yindan Xinnaotong capsule has been used for treating cardio-cerebrovascular diseases for several decades in China. Exercise training can protect against the development of atherosclerosis. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the joint effect of YXC and exercise on atherosclerosis in rats.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25886942 PMCID: PMC4406019 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-015-0622-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Figure 1Bar graphs of hemorheological parameters compared between model group and sham-operated group. All data are expressed as the mean ± SD. Comparisons between sham group and model group of factor levels were analyzed using Bonferon. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Hemorheological parameters of different treatment (mean ± SD) (n = 8, each)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 1.09 ± 0.14 | 6.10 ± 0.96 | 3.41 ± 0.22 | 3.74 ± 0.78 | 45.46 ± 2.10 | 27.57 ± 1.83 | ||||||
| 0 | 0.5 | 1.00 ± 0.05 | 4.92 ± 0.77 | 3.02 ± 0.20 | 4.94 ± 1.20 | 41.23 ± 4.68 | 28.59 ± 2.24 | ||||||
| 0 | 1 | 0.99 ± 0.04 | 6.09 ± 0.73 | 3.20 ± 0.09 | 3.57 ± 0.67 | 45.44 ± 1.61 | 27.20 ± 0.99 | ||||||
| 1 | 0 | 1.03 ± 0.07 | 5.24 ± 0.97 | 3.05 ± 0.30 | 4.14 ± 1.03 | 41.35 ± 5.71 | 27.47 ± 0.85 | ||||||
| 1 | 0.5 | 1.04 ± 0.05 | 5.50 ± 0.60 | 3.12 ± 0.21 | 3.81 ± 0.60 | 42.32 ± 3.75 | 27.94 ± 1.67 | ||||||
| 1 | 1 | 1.01 ± 0.02 | 5.27 ± 0.89 | 3.05 ± 0.22 | 3.58 ± 0.20 | 41.24 ± 4.12 | 28.45 ± 1.77 | ||||||
| 2 | 0 | 0.98 ± 0.02 | 5.08 ± 0.87 | 2.95 ± 0.21 | 3.77 ± 0.29 | 40.66 ± 2.95 | 27.28 ± 1.41 | ||||||
| 2 | 0.5 | 1.00 ± 0.04 | 5.64 ± 0.67 | 3.18 ± 0.13 | 3.44 ± 0.27 | 44.03 ± 2.48 | 27.37 ± 1.09 | ||||||
| 2 | 1 | 1.01 ± 0.05 | 5.45 ± 0.84 | 3.18 ± 0.24 | 3.70 ± 0.74 | 42.55 ± 4.51 | 28.17 ± 1.01 | ||||||
| Two-way ANOVA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| YXC | 2.365 | 0.101 | 1.496 | 0.237 | 3.153 | 0.049 | 2.413 | 0.098 | 2.720 | 0.073 | 0.168 | 0.845 | |
| Swimming | 1.707 | 0.177 | 0.601 | 0.551 | 0.236 | 0.791 | 2.065 | 0.135 | 0.205 | 0.815 | 0.831 | 0.440 | |
| YXC × Swimming | 3.276 | 0.016 | 3.192 | 0.018 | 5.263 | 0.001 | 4.052 | 0.005 | 2.554 | 0.047 | 0.855 | 0.495 | |
All data are expressed as the mean ± SD. The GLM procedure was applied for a two-way ANOVA to test for synergism effect. Comparisons between each pair of factor levels were analyzed using a Bonferon post hoc test. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Figure 2Bar graphs of serum lipoproteins and endothelial factors compared between model group and sham-operated group. A) Comparison of serum lipoproteins between model group and sham-operated group; B) Comparison of endothelial factors between model group and sham-operated group. All data are expressed as the mean ± SD. Comparisons between sham group and model group of factor levels were analyzed using Bonferon. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Blood lipid profile of different treatment (mean ± SD) (n = 8, each)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 2.56 ± 0.42 | 0.84 ± 0.15 | 1.49 ± 0.86 | 0.69 ± 0.18 | ||||
| 0 | 0.5 | 2.39 ± 0.40 | 1.00 ± 0.33 | 0.95 ± 0.50 | 0.94 ± 0.52 | ||||
| 0 | 1 | 2.39 ± 0.45 | 0.82 ± 0.22 | 0.45 ± 0.07 | 0.84 ± 0.16 | ||||
| 1 | 0 | 2.10 ± 0.30 | 0.60 ± 0.23 | 0.62 ± 0.20 | 1.32 ± 0.30 | ||||
| 1 | 0.5 | 2.65 ± 0.18 | 0.92 ± 0.16 | 0.78 ± 0.38 | 1.27 ± 0.31 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | 2.38 ± 0.72 | 0.96 ± 0.28 | 1.24 ± 0.47 | 1.25 ± 0.32 | ||||
| 2 | 0 | 2.07 ± 0.16 | 0.88 ± 0.04 | 0.76 ± 0.42 | 1.17 ± 0.19 | ||||
| 2 | 0.5 | 2.31 ± 0.55 | 0.94 ± 0.31 | 0.68 ± 0.28 | 1.12 ± 0.33 | ||||
| 2 | 1 | 1.77 ± 0.36 | 0.70 ± 0.10 | 0.47 ± 0.18 | 1.06 ± 0.20 | ||||
| Two-way ANOVA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| YXC | 4.098 | 0.022 | 0.419 | 0.660 | 2.387 | 0.098 | 10.628 | 0.000 | |
| Swimming | 1.929 | 0.155 | 3.459 | 0.038 | 1.396 | 0.249 | 0.219 | 0.804 | |
| YXC × Swimming | 1.782 | 0.146 | 3.950 | 0.028 | 5.480 | 0.001 | 0.566 | 0.689 | |
All data are expressed as the mean ± SD. The GLM procedure was applied for a two-way ANOVA to test for synergism effect. Comparisons between each pair of factor levels were analyzed using a Bonferon post hoc test. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Endothelial factors of different treatment (mean ± SD) (n = 8, each)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 16.80 ± 3.99 | 69.54 ± 9.58 | 361.91 ± 56.38 | 57.08 ± 12.57 | ||||
| 0 | 0.5 | 22.67 ± 4.28 | 60.32 ± 9.99 | 207.85 ± 66.03 | 84.86 ± 32.33 | ||||
| 0 | 1 | 24.38 ± 4.47 | 66.04 ± 8.25 | 326.70 ± 155.64 | 78.76 ± 31.82 | ||||
| 1 | 0 | 40.38 ± 7.61 | 73.21 ± 5.25 | 531.44 ± 126.99 | 65.84 ± 25.92 | ||||
| 1 | 0.5 | 32.00 ± 9.56 | 60.21 ± 5.13 | 167.76 ± 86.16 | 63.27 ± 16.27 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | 33.07 ± 8.07 | 65.16 ± 9.22 | 345.63 ± 139.01 | 69.27 ± 17.32 | ||||
| 2 | 0 | 39.62 ± 6.61 | 53.55 ± 8.82 | 362.03 ± 76.92 | 105.91 ± 28.86 | ||||
| 2 | 0.5 | 42.29 ± 12.83 | 62.75 ± 6.91 | 385.41 ± 157.32 | 85.35 ± 16.71 | ||||
| 2 | 1 | 36.19 ± 6.51 | 64.14 ± 8.30 | 212.34 ± 90.98 | 45.26 ± 17.28 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| YXC | 37.361 | 0.000 | 3.642 | 0.330 | 0.778 | 0.466 | 1.544 | 0.224 | |
| Swimming | 0.162 | 0.851 | 1.868 | 0.164 | 8.018 | 0.001 | 2.150 | 0.127 | |
| YXC × Swimming | 3.142 | 0.020 | 4.418 | 0.004 | 5.479 | 0.001 | 6.322 | 0.001 | |
All data are expressed as the mean ± SD. The GLM procedure was applied for a two-way ANOVA to test for synergism effect. Comparisons between each pair of factor levels were analyzed using a Bonferon post hoc test. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Figure 3Effect of different treatment on histopathological changes in LCCA sections by hematoxylin-eosin-stained (magnification, ×200). : deposit of calcium : deposit of lipid; : intima injury; : smooth muscle cells proliferation; : elastic fiber injury. A) The sham group sample: The structure of artery including intimal layer, medial layer and adventitia was clear; B) The model group sample (0 g/kg YXC × 0 h swimming): The arterial wall thickening was about 1/4 of A. Lipid in the intima increasing, deposit of calcium and smooth muscle hyperplasia of media were seen. And elastic fiber was damaged; C) 0 g/kg YXC × 0.5 h swimming group sample: The focal artery wall thickening, lipid and smooth muscle were seen; D) 0 g/kg YXC × 1 h swimming group sample: Obvious artery wall thickening was not seen, and smooth muscle of media increased slightly; E) 1 g/kg YXC × 0 h swimming group sample: Focal artery wall thickening, lipid deposit, focal deposit of calcium and slight smooth mucle cells were observed and less than group B; F) 1 g/kg YXC × 0.5 h swimming group sample and G) 1 g/kg YXC × 1 h swimming group sample: There were not obvious changes compared with model group; H) 2 g/kg YXC × 0 h swimming group sample: Smooth muscle of media increased slightly and focal deposit of calcium was seen; I) 2 g/kg YXC × 0.5 h swimming group sample: Smooth muscle of media increased slightly and focal deposit of calcium was seen in media.; and J) 2 g/kg YXC× 1 h swimming group sample: The focal endothelial cell injury and deposit of calcium were found. The abnormal changes can been seen in part of elastic fiber. The initial state of atherosclerosis was found in the section (B) of the model rats. The pathological changes were suppressed to some degree by the combination of 2 g/kg YXC and swimming (H-J), swimming alone (C, D) or 1 g/kg YXC alone (E).
Structural remodeling measurement of different treatment (mean ± SD) (n = 8, each)
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 28.65 ± 5.66 | 678.91 ± 73.86 | ||
| 0 | 0.5 | 22.91 ± 4.01 | 744.99 ± 64.06 | ||
| 0 | 1 | 21.33 ± 2.55 | 731.37 ± 59.84 | ||
| 1 | 0 | 25.46 ± 5.75 | 706.91 ± 86.70 | ||
| 1 | 0.5 | 22.88 ± 4.14 | 680.58 ± 50.25 | ||
| 1 | 1 | 22.61 ± 5.82 | 714.39 ± 65.46 | ||
| 2 | 0 | 21.46 ± 2.81 | 719.61 ± 58.98 | ||
| 2 | 0.5 | 22.67 ± 2.66 | 699.70 ± 63.79 | ||
| 2 | 1 | 24.28 ± 4.69 | 736.37 ± 79.41 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| YXC | 0.577 | 0.565 | 1.195 | 0.310 | |
| Swimming | 2.088 | 0.133 | 0.291 | 0.748 | |
| YXC × Swimming | 2.350 | 0.047 | 0.171 | 0.952 | |
All data are expressed as the mean ± SD. The GLM procedure was applied for a two-way ANOVA to test for synergism effect. Comparisons between each pair of factor levels were analyzed using a Bonferon post hoc test. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Figure 4Effect of different treatment on SM22α protein expression in LCCA sections by immunohistochemistrial staining (magnification, ×200). A) The sham group sample; B) The model group sample; C) 0.5 h swimming group sample; D) 1 h swimming group sample; E) 1 g/kg YXC group sample; F) 1 g/kg YXC and 0.5 h swimming group sample; G) 1 g/kg YXC and 1 h swimming group sample; H) 2 g/kg YXC group sample; I) 2 g/kg YXC and 0.5 h swimming group sample; and J) 2 g/kg YXC and 1 h swimming group sample.
Figure 5Relative SM22α levels in different groups. The GLM procedure was applied for a two-way ANOVA to test for synergism effect. Comparisons between each pair of factor levels were analyzed using a Bonferon post hoc test. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.