| Literature DB >> 25977701 |
Jian Li1, Zezhou Liu1, Mingxing Guo2, Kejia Xu1, Miao Jiang3, Aiping Lu4, Xiaoyan Gao2.
Abstract
Objective. Berberine has been used to treat nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which has been addressed in many studies. In this study, we investigated the molecular pharmacology mechanisms of berberine using metabolomic techniques. Methods. Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into three groups (10 rats in each group): (i) normal control group; (ii) high-fat diet- (HFD-) induced NASH model group; and (iii) HFD berberine-treated group (i.d. 200 mg/kg). The handling procedure lasted eight weeks. Then, UPLC-Q-TOF/MS techniques coupled with histopathology and biochemical analyses were adopted to explore the mechanisms of berberine on the protective effects against NASH. Key Findings. (i) According to conventional test results, berberine treatment plays a fighting role in HFD-induced NASH due to its beneficial effects against insulin resistance, inflammation, and lipid metabolism. (ii) Based on UPLC-Q-TOF/MS techniques, metabolic profiles that involved sphingomyelin (SM), phosphatidylcholine (PC), lysophosphatidylcholine (LysoPC), 13-hydroperoxy-9, 11-octadecadienoic acid (13-HpODE), eicosatrienoic acid, docosatrienoic acid, and eicosenoic acid could provide potential metabolic biomarkers to address the pharmacological mechanisms of berberine. Conclusions. The parts of molecular pharmacological mechanisms of berberine for NASH treatment are related to the regulation of metabolic disruption involving phospholipid and unsaturated fatty acids in rats with NASH.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25977701 PMCID: PMC4421035 DOI: 10.1155/2015/897914
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Effects of berberine on hepatic pathological, and the level of serum proinflammatory (TNF-α, IL-6). (a) Liver tissue paraffin section and H&E staining; (b) frozen section and red O oil staining; (c) serum TNF-α and IL-6 level detected by ELISA.
Change in serum parameters of rats fed on a standard diet (NC), high-fat diet (M), or HFD with the berberine (Ber) treatment for eight weeks (, n = 10).
| Index | NC | M | Ber |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALT (U/L) | 19.49 ± 4.68 | 40.67 ± 9.47** | 20.92 ± 5.56## |
| AST (U/L) | 199.88 ± 30.74 | 390.60 ± 59.13** | 281.57 ± 70.86## |
| CHO (mmol/L) | 1.68 ± 0.19 | 2.81 ± 0.79* | 2.07 ± 0.22# |
| TG (mmol/L) | 0.56 ± 0.04 | 1.65 ± 0.12* | 0.65 ± 0.13## |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 0.16 ± 0.02 | 0.81 ± 0.42* | 0.54 ± 0.38 |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | 3.51 ± 0.67 | 4.74 ± 2.20* | 3.24 ± 1.17# |
| Insulin (mIU/L) | 16.67 ± 4.0 | 17.09 ± 2.40 | 15.77 ± 3.53 |
| HOMA index | 2.6 ± 0.68 | 3.6 ± 3.02* | 2.3 ± 0.75# |
Note: ∗ P < 0.05, compared with NC group; ∗∗ P < 0.01, compared with NC group; # P < 0.05 and ## P < 0.01, compared with M group.
Figure 2PCA scores plots discriminating HFD-fed rats from normal control rats and berberine treatment rats: (a) positive ion mode; (b) negative ion mode. Note. ■ showed normal control rats; ▲ showed HFD-induced NASH rats; ● showed NASH combined with berberine treatment rats.
Figure 3The results of multiple pattern recognition of serum biomarkers between normal control rats and HFD-induced NASH rats: (a) OPLS-DA score plot under positive ion mode; (b) OPLS-DA score plot under negative ion mode.
Figure 4Random forest importance plot for each subjects: (a) positive ion mode; (b) negative ion mode. Note. N: normal control rat; M: NASH rat; B: berberine treatment rat.
Altered metabolites in serum samples of the nonalcoholic steatohepatitis model (M) and berberine (Ber) treatment group (PC: phosphatidylcholine; LysoPC: lysophosphatidylcholine; SM: sphingomyelin; 13-HpODE: 13-hydroperoxy-octadecadienoic acid).
| tR |
| VIP | ESI model | Formula | Metabolites | Fold changes | Classify | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M/NC | Ber/M | |||||||
| 8.45 | 468.31/512.29 | 2.17/1.34 | [M+H]+/[M+FA-H]− | C22H46NO7P | LysoPC (14:0) |
|
| Glycerophospholipids |
| 8.46 | 311.22 | 1.09 | [M-H]− | C18H32O4 | 13-HpODE |
|
| Linoleic acids |
| 8.73 | 508.34 | 1.22 | [M+H]+ | C25H50NO7P | LysoPC (17:1) |
|
| Glycerophospholipids |
| 8.88 | 522.36 | 4.93 | [M+H]+ | C26H52NO7P | LysoPC (18:1) |
|
| Glycerophospholipids |
| 8.96 | 548.37 | 1.84 | [M+H]+ | C28H54NO7P | LysoPC (20:2) |
|
| Glycerophospholipids |
| 9.25 | 305.25 | 4.05 | [M-H]− | C20H34O2 | Eicosatrienoic acid |
|
| Fatty acids |
| 9.50 | 295.26 | 1.19 | [M-H]− | C19H36O2 | Phytomonic acid |
|
| Fatty acids |
| 9.56 | 333.28 | 1.06 | [M-H]− | C22H38O2 | Docosatrienoic acid |
|
| Fatty acids |
| 9.68 | 309.28 | 2.28 | [M-H]− | C20H38O2 | Eicosenoic Acid |
|
| Fatty acids |
| 10.03 | 745.55/701.55 | 1.48/1.93 | [M+FA-H]−/[M+H]+ | C39H77N2O6P | SM (34:2) |
|
| Sphingolipids |
| 10.30 | 830.57/874.56 | 1.17/1.04 | [M+H]+/[M+FA-H]− | C48H80NO8P | PC (40:8) |
|
| Glycerophospholipids |
| 10.37 | 747.57 | 3.08 | [M+FA-H]− | C39H79N2O6P | SM (34:1) |
|
| Sphingolipids |
| 10.38 | 703.58 | 4.74 | [M+H]+ | C39H79N2O6P | SM (34:1) |
|
| Sphingolipids |
| 10.52 | 806.57 | 5.08 | [M+H]+ | C46H80NO8P | PC (38:6) |
|
| Glycerophospholipids |
| 10.53 | 850.56 | 2.55 | [M+FA-H]− | C46H80NO8P | PC (38:6) |
|
| Glycerophospholipids |
| 10.92 | 796.58 | 1.87 | [M+H]+ | C45H82NO8P | PC (37:4) |
|
| Glycerophospholipids |
| 10.94 | 731.61 | 1.56 | [M+H]+ | C41H83N2O6P | SM (36:1) |
|
| Sphingolipids |
| 11.15 | 834.60/878.59 | 4.45/2.03 | [M+H]+/[M+FA-H]− | C48H84NO8P | PC (40:6) |
|
| Glycerophospholipids |
| 11.40 | 836.62 | 2.27 | [M+H]+ | C48H86NO8P | PC (40:5) |
|
| Glycerophospholipids |
| 11.60 | 812.62 | 6.25 | [M+H]+ | C46H86NO8P | PC (38:3) |
|
| Glycerophospholipids |
| 12.05 | 811.67/855.66 | 3.81/2.24 | [M+H]+/[M+FA-H]− | C47H91N2O6P | SM (42:3) |
|
| Sphingolipids |
Note. The data were calculated using the integrated peak areas. The value represents fold change. VIP was obtained from OPLS-DA with a threshold of 1.0. The up and down arrows indicate a respective increased or decreased concentration of each metabolite in the HFD group versus normal control (M/NC) and berberine-treated versus HFD group (Ber/M).
Figure 5The metabolic network profile. The map was gained by analyzing known metabolic pathways.