| Literature DB >> 27738447 |
Ji-Meng Zhao1, Liu Chen1, Ci-Li Zhou2, Yin Shi3, Yu-Wei Li1, Hai-Xia Shang1, Lu-Yi Wu1, Chun-Hui Bao2, Chuan-Zi Dou2, Huan-Gan Wu3.
Abstract
Aim. To compare whether there is different effect between electroacupuncture (EA) and moxibustion (Mox) on visceral hypersensitivity (their analgesic effects) in constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (C-IBS). Methods. EA at 1 mA and 3 mA and Mox at 43°C and 46°C were applied to the Shangjuxu (ST37, bilateral) acupoint in rats with C-IBS and normal rats. An abdominal withdrawal reflex (AWR) score was used to assess visceral hypersensitivity. Toluidine blue staining was used to assess mast cell (MC) activity in colon of rats. Immunochemistry was used to measure 5-HT and 5-HT4 receptor expression in the colon. Results. AWR scores in all EA (1 mA and 3 mA) and Mox (43°C and 46°C) treatment groups after colorectal distention (CRD) stimulation pressure of 20, 40, 60, and 80 mmHg were significantly lower than those of the model (MC) group (P all < 0.01). The MC counts and degranulation rates in the colon of all EA and Mox treatment groups and the MC group were significantly higher than those of the NC group (P all < 0.01). MC degranulation rates in the colon of all EA and Mox treatment groups were lower than those of the MC group (P all < 0.05). 5-HT expression in colon of all EA and Mox treatment groups was significantly lower than that of the MC group (P all < 0.01), and 5-HT4R expression in colon of both EA groups was significantly higher than that of the MC group (P both < 0.01). Conclusion. EA and Mox treatments may both ameliorate visceral hypersensitivity at different degree in rats with C-IBS, and EA treatment was better than Mox.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27738447 PMCID: PMC5055954 DOI: 10.1155/2016/9410505
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
AWR scores of rats in each group after stimulation [M (P25, P75)].
| Group |
| 20 mmHg | 40 mmHg | 60 mmHg | 80 mmHg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 10 | 0.00 (0.00-0.00)B | 1.00 (0.00–1.00)B | 1.00 (1.00–1.25)B | 2.00 (1.75–2.00)B |
| Model | 10 | 0.75 (1.00-1.00)D | 2.00 (2.00–3.00)D | 3.00 (2.75–3.00)D | 4.00 (3.00–4.00)D |
| Mox 43°C | 10 | 0.00 (0.00–1.00)A | 1.00 (0.00–1.00)B | 1.50 (1.00–2.00)B | 2.00 (2.00–3.00)B |
| Mox 46°C | 10 | 0.00 (0.00–1.00)A | 1.00 (1.00-1.00)B | 1.50 (1.00–2.00)B | 2.00 (2.00–2.25)B |
| EA 1 mA | 10 | 0.00 (0.00–0.25)B | 1.00 (0.00–1.00)B | 2.00 (1.00–2.00)B | 2.00 (2.00–3.00)B |
| EA 3 mA | 10 | 0.00 (0.00–1.00)A | 1.00 (0.75–1.00)B | 2.00 (1.00–2.00)B | 2.00 (2.00–3.00)B |
A P < 0.05, B P < 0.01, versus the normal group; D P < 0.01, versus model group.
Figure 1(a): Number of MCs in colonic mucosa in different group; (b): MC degranulation rate (%) in colonic mucosa in different group; A P < 0.01, versus normal group; B P < 0.05, versus model group.
Figure 2MC activity in colon in different group. (a): normal group; (b): model group; (c): Mox 43°C group; (d): Mox 46°C group; (e): EA 1 mA group; (f): EA 3 mA group.
Figure 35-HT IHC index in different group. A P < 0.01, B P < 0.05, versus normal group; C P < 0.01, versus model group.
Figure 4Expressions of 5-HT in colon in different group. (a): normal group; (b): model group; (c): Mox 43°C group; (d): Mox 46°C group; (e): EA 1 mA group; (f): EA 3 mA group.
Figure 55-HT4R IHC index in different group. A P < 0.01, versus the model group.
Figure 6Expressions of 5-HT4R in colon in different group. (a): normal group; (b): model group; (c): Mox 43°C group; (d): Mox 46°C group; (e): EA 1 mA group; (f): EA 3 mA group.