| Literature DB >> 30891076 |
Yanni Zhang1,2, Zhongxin Li1, Zhaolong Zhao1, Wentao Kuai3, Cong Wei4, Jian Lv1, Jie Zhi3, Yitao Jia3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common, distressing, and persistent symptom for patients with malignant tumor including colorectal cancer (CRC). Although studies of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) have sprung out in recent years, the pathophysiological mechanisms that induce CRF remain unclear, and effective therapeutic interventions have yet to be established.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30891076 PMCID: PMC6390313 DOI: 10.1155/2019/3870812
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1General condition of the two groups. (a) Tumor weight comparison of NS and YZXJ groups. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups. (b) Colon cancer orthotopic transplantation in BALB/c mice. (c) Appearance and activity. NS group had rougher, lusterless hair, more apathetic condition, and lower movement than YZXJ group. (d) Average daily food intake of each mouse weighted every 4 days. (e) Average weight of each mouse weighted every week. ∗ Weight without in situ tumor.
Figure 2Comparison of fatigue state. (a) Physical fatigue exhaustive swimming time of NS and YZXJ group tested after 10-day intervention. (b) Immobile time in tail suspension test of NS and YZXJ group tested after 14-day intervention. ∗ P<0.05.
Figure 3Concentration of inflammatory factors and hepatic glycogen. (a) Fatigue-related inflammatory factors in YZXJ group were generally lower than NS group, particularly for IL-1β and IL-6. (b) The level of liver glycogen in the two groups, reflexing the advantage energy reserve capacity in YZXJ treated mice. ∗ P<0.05.
Concentration of IL-1β, IL-1α, IL-2, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α, and INF-γ in NS and YZXJ groups. ∗P<0.05.
| Immune factors | NS | YZXJ | t |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IL-1 | 17.07±7.84 | 10.29±7.86 | 2.15 | 0.04 |
| IL-1 | 14.34±14.55 | 18.32±13.33 | 0.70 | 0.49 |
| IL-2 | 12.01±2.07 | 11.08±1.33 | 1.29 | 0.21 |
| IL-6 | 229.44±117.54 | 92.40±71.43 | 3.40 | 0.002 |
| IL-10 | 443.61±227.34 | 413.29±234.43 | 0.33 | 0.75 |
| TNF- | 65.56±40.45 | 69.84±17.07 | 0.33 | 0.75 |
| INF- | 193.16±348.26 | 158.33±250.25 | 0.28 | 0.78 |
Figure 4Comparison of α and β diversity. (a, b) Two indicators of α diversity detected in NS and YZXJ group. Chao 1 is represented as the bacteria abundance, and Simpson index reflects the bacteria diversity. (c) Unifrac distance of β diversity is used to calculate the distance between samples by using the evolutionary information and further constructing weighted Unifrac distance through OTUs abundance information. (d) Intergroups difference was greater than intragroup difference, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.117).
Figure 5Alteration of fecal microbiota due to the intervention of YZXJ. (a) Cumulative column chart of relative species abundance in phylum level. (b) Top differences of fecal microbiota shifts in genus level.
Differential fecal microbiota on genus level between NS and YZXJ groups.
| Differential cecal microbiota | Mean |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| NS | YZXJ | ||
|
| |||
| Cellulosilyticum | 0 | 6.83 E-04 | 0.000999 |
| [Ruminococcus]_gauvreauii_group | 2.05E-05 | 1.85 E-03 | 0.008991 |
| [Eubacterium]_ventriosum_group | 1.05 E-04 | 7.68 E-04 | 0.02997 |
| Roseburia | 5.46E-05 | 6.03 E-04 | 0.032967 |
| Christensenellaceae_R-7_group | 2.27E-06 | 3.35 E-04 | 0.045954 |
| Terrisporobacter | 0 | 1.06 E-04 | 0.012987 |
| Candidatus_Soleaferrea | 1.59E-05 | 5.40E-05 | 0.013986 |
| unidentified_Clostridiales_vadinBB60_group | 1.14E-05 | 6.88E-05 | 0.02997 |
| Parabacteroides | 1.58 E-02 | 3.58 E-02 | 0.038961 |
| unidentified_Saprospiraceae | 0 | 1.49E-05 | 0.010055 |
| Elizabethkingia | 0 | 1.12E-05 | 0.035984 |
| Microbacterium | 0 | 1.49E-05 | 0.010055 |
| Alpinimonas | 0 | 1.12E-05 | 0.035984 |
| Pirellula | 3.87E-05 | 8.74E-05 | 0.030969 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Faecalibacterium | 8.19E-05 | 0 | 0.000999 |
| Subdoligranulum | 3.41E-05 | 0 | 0.000999 |
| Ruminococcaceae_UCG-002 | 2.05E-05 | 0 | 0.000999 |
| Ruminococcus_2 | 2.73E-05 | 0 | 0.000999 |
| Clostridium_sensu_stricto_7 | 1.36E-05 | 0 | 0.008304 |
| Holdemanella | 2.05E-05 | 0 | 0.000999 |
| Phascolarctobacterium | 1.14E-05 | 0 | 0.018453 |
| Dialister | 5.00E-05 | 0 | 0.000999 |
| Tumebacillus | 9.10E-06 | 0 | 0.041006 |
| Haliangium | 1.59E-05 | 0 | 0.003737 |
| Thiobacillus | 1.36E-05 | 0 | 0.008304 |
| Alkanindiges | 1.14E-05 | 0 | 0.018453 |
| Marinobacter | 1.14E-05 | 0 | 0.018453 |
| Arcobacter | 6.14E-05 | 0 | 0.000999 |
| Sulfuricurvum | 9.10E-06 | 0 | 0.041006 |
| Rubrobacter | 1.14E-05 | 0 | 0.018453 |
| Iamia | 1.82E-05 | 0 | 0.001681 |
| Sneathia | 9.10E-06 | 0 | 0.041006 |