| Literature DB >> 29609586 |
Yu-Qing Tang1, Cheng Li1, Xue-Jiao Sun1, Yi Liu1, Xi-Ting Wang1, Yu-Bo Guo1, Li-Li Wang2, Ru-Feng Ma1, Jian-Zhao Niu1, Min Fu3, Dong-Wei Zhang4, Yu Li5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that Fructus Ligustri Lucidi (FLL) plays a beneficial role in preventing the development of osteoporosis. However, the effects of FLL on estrogen receptor (ER) α and ERβ expressions remain unknown. Therefore, in the current study we attempted to probe into the effects of FLL on ERα and ERβ expressions in femurs, tibias and uteri of ovariectomized (OVX) rats.Entities:
Keywords: Estrogen receptor; Femurs; Fructus Ligustri Lucidi (FLL); Osteoporosis; Tibias; Uteri
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29609586 PMCID: PMC5880075 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-018-2171-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
The uterus coefficient in the different groups of rats
| Groups | Number | Uterus weight/Body weight (g/100 g) |
|---|---|---|
| Sham | 9 | 0.2132 ± 0.0312* |
| OVX | 9 | 0.0357 ± 0.0143 |
| OVX + EV | 9 | 0.1493 ± 0.0240* |
| OVX + FLL | 9 | 0.0322 ± 0.0137 |
*Compared with OVX group rats, *P < 0.05
Serum levels of E2, LH and FSH in the different groups of rats
| Groups | Number | E2 (pg/ml) | LH (mUI/ml) | FSH (mUI/ml) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham | 9 | 15.5975 ± 5.0579* | 2.1711 ± 0.8571* | 0.8411 ± 0.3071* |
| OVX | 9 | 6.65 ± 2.3853 | 3.8744 ± 0.8100 | 1.8837 ± 0.3301 |
| OVX + EV | 9 | 11.9755 ± 1.0535* | 2.5850 ± 0.4829* | 1.2087 ± 0.1795* |
| OVX + FLL | 9 | 6.8842 ± 1.9301 | 3.0455 ± 0.5554* | 1.4512 ± 0.2801* |
*Compared with OVX group rats, *P < 0.05
Fig. 1The representative images (a) and images analysis results of immunohistochemical staining (b) showing the effect of FLL on ERα expression in the femurs of the rats. The arrows illustrated the expression and distribution of ERα. Data are presented as mean ± SD. **P < 0.01 compared with the OVX control group
Fig. 2The representative images (a) and images analysis results of immunohistochemical staining (b) showing the effect of FLL on ERβ expression in the femurs of the rats. The arrows illustrated the expression and distribution of ERβ. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 or **P < 0.01 compared with the OVX control group
Fig. 3The representative images (a) and images analysis results of western blot (b and c) showing the effects of FLL on the expressions of ERα and ERβ in the tibias of the rats. β-actin was taken as the internal control. Data are presented as mean ± SD. **P < 0.01 compared with the OVX control group
Fig. 4The representative images (a) and images analysis results of immunohistochemical staining (b) showing the effect of FLL on ERα expression in the uteri of the rats. The arrows illustrated the expression and distribution of ERα. Data are presented as mean ± SD. **P < 0.01 compared with the OVX control group
Fig. 5The representative images (a) and images analysis results of immunohistochemical staining (b) showing the effect of FLL on ERβ expression in the uteri of the rats. The arrows illustrated the expression and distribution of ERβ. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 or **P < 0.01 compared with the OVX control group
Fig. 6The representative images (a) and images analysis results of western blot (b and c) showing the effects of FLL on the expressions of ERα and ERβ in the uteri of the rats. β-actin was taken as the internal control. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 or **P < 0.01 compared with the OVX control group