| Literature DB >> 27069915 |
Sheng-xi Meng1, Qian Liu1, Ya-jun Tang1, Wen-jing Wang1, Qing-shan Zheng2, Hua-jie Tian1, Dong-sheng Yao1, Lin Liu1, Jing-hua Peng3, Yu Zhao1, Yi-yang Hu4, Qin Feng1.
Abstract
This study is to investigate the therapeutic effects of the recipe composed of Atractylodes macrocephala polysaccharide, chlorogenic acid, and geniposide (named ACG) on experimental nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL). The research was divided into two parts as screening experiment and verification experiment. In the screening experiment, we used high-fat diet (HFD) induced NAFL rat model and uniform design to get the recipe from five Chinese herbal active components. In the verification experiment, HFD induced fatty liver rat and mouse NAFL models and free fatty acid (FFA) induced HepG2 cell model were used to verify the effects of ACG. According to the multiple regression equation of the hepatic triglyceride (TG) contents of each group in the screening experiment, the recipe ACG was obtained and the doses of Atractylodes macrocephala polysaccharide, chlorogenic acid, and geniposide for rats were 266.67, 3.33, and 45 mg/kg, respectively. The results of verification experiment verified that ACG could significantly reduce hepatic TG contents of NAFL rats and mice, as well as the cellular TG content of FFA-induced HepG2 cells. ACG could also improve HOMA-IR and hepatic mitochondrial ultrastructure of NAFL mice. Our study verified that ACG recipe could regulate lipid metabolism of NAFL in vivo and in vitro.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27069915 PMCID: PMC4812184 DOI: 10.1155/2016/1026852
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
The amount of active ingredients in each group of screening experiment (mg/kg/d).
| Groups | Chlorogenic acid ( | Polydatin ( | Atractylodes polysaccharide ( | Gardenoside ( | Curcumin ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number 1 | 0.67 | 1.00 | 106.67 | 27.00 | 22.00 |
| Number 2 | 0.67 | 2.00 | 160.00 | 45.00 | 11.00 |
| Number 3 | 1.33 | 3.00 | 106.67 | 18.00 | 27.50 |
| Number 4 | 1.33 | 4.00 | 53.33 | 45.00 | 16.50 |
| Number 5 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 266.67 | 18.00 | 5.50 |
| Number 6 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 213.33 | 36.00 | 27.50 |
| Number 7 | 2.67 | 2.00 | 266.67 | 9.00 | 16.50 |
| Number 8 | 2.67 | 3.00 | 53.33 | 36.00 | 5.50 |
| Number 9 | 3.33 | 4.00 | 160.00 | 9.00 | 22.00 |
| Number 10 | 3.33 | 5.00 | 213.33 | 27.00 | 11.00 |
The TG content of liver tissue in each group of rats in the screening experiment.
| Groups | TG (mg/g liver tissue) |
|---|---|
| Number 1 | 41.66 ± 9.14 |
| Number 2 | 29.90 ± 8.48 |
| Number 3 | 43.13 ± 22.36 |
| Number 4 | 73.26 ± 10.00 |
| Number 5 | 48.30 ± 15.81 |
| Number 6 | 31.30 ± 24.81 |
| Number 7 | 42.14 ± 9.18 |
| Number 8 | 69.34 ± 33.37 |
| Number 9 | 40.25 ± 17.55 |
| Number 10 | 39.45 ± 9.79 |
Data are expressed as means ± SD (n = 4; “n” means the rat number of each group).
Body weight, food intake, liver weight, liver/body weight ratio, and serum transaminase in different groups of SD rats.
| Parametersa | ND | HFD | HFD + ACG | HFD + QHD | HFD + RGZ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight (g) | 438.33 ± 23.96 | 588.89 ± 52.05## | 478.67 ± 56.05 | 484.22 ± 58.47 | 495.22 ± 44.61 |
| Food intake (g/day) | 19.65 ± 2.2 | 21.53 ± 2.6 | 20.82 ± 2.3 | 20.00 ± 2.1 | 21.44 ± 2.2 |
| Liver weight (g) | 12.82 ± 1.36 | 23.06 ± 3.68## | 16.23 ± 1.23 | 18.24 ± 2.13 | 18.92 ± 2.64 |
| Liver/body weight ratio | 2.92 ± 0.26 | 3.89 ± 0.34## | 3.42 ± 0.41 | 3.74 ± 0.40 | 3.81 ± 0.32 |
| ALT (U/L) | 25.63 ± 11.23 | 39.24 ± 14.10# | 26.42 ± 8.68 | 21.45 ± 7.85 | 37.56 ± 8.97 |
| AST (U/L) | 22.87 ± 4.52 | 39.34 ± 14.40## | 26.11 ± 8.27 | 23.29 ± 4.91 | 27.13 ± 2.37 |
aData are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9).
Statistical analysis of the data was performed using the one-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey's post hoc test.
## P < 0.01 versus the ND group.
# P < 0.05 versus the ND group.
P < 0.01 versus the HFD group.
P < 0.05 versus the HFD group.
Body weight, food intake, liver weight, liver/body weight ratio, and serum transaminase indifferent groups of C57BL/6 mice.
| Parametersa | ND | HFD | HFD + ACG | HFD + QHD | HFD + RGZ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight (g) | 29.69 ± 2.89 | 45.85 ± 2.23## | 34.69 ± 2.84 | 32.75 ± 2.66 | 33.54 ± 2.57 |
| Food intake (g/day) | 2.60 ± 0.09 | 2.77 ± 0.14 | 2.65 ± 0.10 | 2.62 ± 0.08 | 2.73 ± 0.08 |
| Liver weight (g) | 1.06 ± 0.10 | 2.45 ± 0.14## | 1.35 ± 0.38 | 1.56 ± 0.45 | 1.67 ± 0.43 |
| Liver/body weight ratio | 3.60 ± 0.37 | 5.36 ± 0.30## | 3.95 ± 1.39 | 4.78 ± 1.52 | 5.04 ± 1.46 |
| ALT (U/L) | 30.31 ± 7.54 | 91.65 ± 20.78## | 55.18 ± 13.66 | 71.98 ± 19.55 | 81.68 ± 20.5 |
| AST (U/L) | 20.42 ± 4.26 | 87.83 ± 18.26## | 60.46 ± 13.51 | 74.84 ± 11.91 | 82.44 ± 16.76 |
aData are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9).
Statistical analysis of the data was performed using the one-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey's post hoc test.
## P < 0.01 versus the ND group.
P < 0.01 versus the HFD group.
P < 0.05 versus the HFD group.
& P < 0.05 versus the HFD + RGZ group.
Figure 1ACG ameliorates lipid accumulation in the liver of HFD induced obesity SD rats. (a) H&E staining of liver sections (×200). (b) Oil-Red O staining of liver sections (×200). (c) Effects of ACG on hepatic TG and FFA levels. The values reported in the figure represent the means ± SD (n = 9). ## P < 0.01 versus the ND group; P < 0.01 versus the HFD group; & P < 0.05 versus the HFD + RGZ group.
Figure 2Effects of ACG on lipid metabolism and glycometabolism in HFD induced obesity C57BL/6 mice. (a) H&E staining of liver sections (×200). (b) Oil-Red O staining of liver sections (×200). (c) The transmission electron micrograph of hepatocytes at magnification ×9900. N: nucleus and LV: lipid vacuoles. (d) Hepatic TG, TC, and FFA levels. (e) Serum lipid: TG, TC, HDL, and LDL. (f) Blood glucose, insulin level, and HOMA-IR. The values reported in the figure represent the means ± SD (n = 9). P < 0.05 versus the HFD group; ## P < 0.01 versus the ND group; P < 0.01 versus the HFD group; && P < 0.01 versus the HFD + ACG group.
Average score of histopathological findings in livers of SD rats.
| Parametersa | ND | HFD | HFD + ACG | HFD + QHD | HFD + RGZ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steatosis | 0 ± 0 | 2.56 ± 0.53## | 1.56 ± 0.53 | 1.56 ± 0.53 | 2.0 ± 0.50 |
| Inflammation | 0 ± 0 | 0.56 ± 0.53 | 0.22 ± 0.44 | 0.22 ± 0.44 | 0.33 ± 0.5 |
| Ballooning | 0 ± 0 | 1.89 ± 0.33## | 1.11 ± 0.33 | 1.22 ± 0.44 | 1.44 ± 0.52 |
aData are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9).
Statistical analysis of the data was performed using the one-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey's post hoc test.
## P < 0.01 versus the ND group.
P < 0.01 versus the HFD group.
Average score of histopathological findings in livers of C57BL/6 mice.
| Parametersa | ND | HFD | HFD + ACG | HFD + QHD | HFD + RGZ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steatosis | 0 ± 0 | 2.67 ± 0.50## | 1.67 ± 0.71 | 1.56 ± 0.53 | 1.89 ± 0.60 |
| Inflammation | 0 ± 0 | 1.22 ± 0.97## | 0.44 ± 0.53 | 0.56 ± 0.52 | 0.89 ± 0.33 |
| Ballooning | 0 ± 0 | 2.00 ± 0## | 1.22 ± 0.83 | 1.33 ± 0.50 | 1.56 ± 0.53 |
aData are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9).
Statistical analysis of the data was performed using the one-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey's post hoc test.
## P < 0.01 versus the ND group.
P < 0.01 versus the HFD group.
P < 0.05 versus the HFD group.
Figure 3Effects of ACG on HepG2 cellular steatosis. (a) The cells were stained with Oil-Red and observed under microscope (×200). (b) ACG reduces intracellular triacylglycerol accumulation in HepG2 cells. The values reported in the figure represent the means ± SD (n = 9). ## P < 0.01 versus the normal group; P < 0.05 versus the FFA group.