| Literature DB >> 26019579 |
Lu Wang1, Yanmei Sun2, Cailian Ruan1, Bofeng Liu1, Lin Zhao1, Xiujuan Gu3.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the therapeutic effect of Angelica sinensis on a rat model of diffuse interstitial pulmonary fibrosis induced by bleomycin A5. The mechanism by which A. sinensis exerts its effect is also discussed. A diffuse interstitial pulmonary fibrosis model was established in 36 male Wistar rats by an endotracheal injection of bleomycin A5 (5 mg/kg). Then, these rats were randomly divided into the model group (n = 18) and the treatment group (treated with A. sinensis after modelling, n = 18). Control rats (n = 6) received an equal volume of saline. Hematoxylin-eosin (HE) staining was performed to analyse alveolitis and Masson staining, to observe pulmonary fibrosis. Collagen content was determined by hydroxyproline assay. Nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) activity was measured by electrophoretic mobility shift assay. Transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) expression at mRNA level was detected by northern blotting and at protein level by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The results obtained showed that the alveolitis and pulmonary fibrosis of the rats treated with A. sinensis was significantly alleviated compared with that of the rats in the model group. Treatment with A. sinensis also lowered the content of collagen, decreased NF-κB activity in alveolar macrophages and reduced the TGF-β expression at the mRNA and protein level. These results indicated that A. sinensis is effective in treating and alleviating interstitial pulmonary fibrosis, possibly by lowering collagen, inhibiting the activity of NF-κB and reducing the TGF-β expression.Entities:
Keywords: Angelica sinensis; diffuse interstitial pulmonary fibrosis; nuclear factor
Year: 2014 PMID: 26019579 PMCID: PMC4433952 DOI: 10.1080/13102818.2014.957487
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip ISSN: 1310-2818 Impact factor: 1.632
Degrees of alveolitis and interstitial pulmonary fibrosis analysed by HE and Masson staining.
| Alveolitis classification | Pulmonary fibrosis classification | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groups | Degree 0 | Degree 1 | Degree 2 | Degree 3 | Degree 0 | Degree 1 | Degree 2 | Degree 3 | ||
| Control | Weeks 1, 2, 4 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Model | Week 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Week 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
| Week 4 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | |
| Treatment | Week 1 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Week 2 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| Week 4 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
Content of collagen in the lung tissues (mg/g).
| Groups | Control | Model | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | 94.61 ± 6.52 | 101.71 ± 8.09 | 98.73 ± 9.95 |
| Week 2 | 93.65 ± 5.57 | 114.83 ± 5.47 | 102.52 ± 4.26 |
| Week 4 | 94.72 ± 5.31 | 167.32 ± 6.44* | 96.34 ± 11.17# |
*P < 0.05, compared with the control group.
# P < 0.01, compared with the model group.
NF-κB activity in alveolar macrophages.
| Groups | Control | Model | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | 4.56 ± 2.25 | 32.83 ± 5.48* | 18.74 ± 5.41# |
| Week 2 | 4.81 ± 1.85 | 6.73 ± 3.24 | 3.36 ± 0.93 |
| Week 4 | 5.23 ± 1.37 | 3.46 ± 4.22 | 4.27 ± 1.23 |
*P < 0.05, compared with the control group.
# P < 0.05, compared with the model group.
Figure 1. Northern blot analysis of the TGF-β expression at the mRNA level. Pulmonary tissues of the control group, the model group and the treatment group were collected at week 1, week 2 and week 4 after modelling. Total RNAs were extracted from these pulmonary tissues for northern blotting analysis. (A) Representative results of northern blots probed with TGF-β; ethidium bromide staining of 18S and 28S rRNA indicated the integrity and equal gel loading of RNA. (B) Quantitative northern blots results of TGF-β intensity. Compared with the model group, *P < 0.05.
TGF-β protein level in bronchoalveolar lavage (μg/L).
| Groups | Control | Model | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | 89.23 ± 32.4 | 384.22 ± 78.2* | 123.92 ± 34.14# |
| Week 2 | 92.87 ± 30.1 | 291.25 ± 89.27* | 112.86 ± 21.28# |
| Week 4 | 90.34 ± 28.8 | 102.30 ± 23.21 | 119.63 ± 34.36 |
*P < 0.05, compared with the control group.
# P < 0.05, compared with the model group.