| Literature DB >> 31064364 |
Hongxu Du1, Jingying Bai1, Jinli Wang1, Miao He1, Wen Xiong1, Wenjuan Yuan1, Mingyu Qiao1, Ke Ming1, Yi Wu1, Deyun Wang1, Yuanliang Hu1, Jiaguo Liu2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Duck viral hepatitis (DVH) is an acute disease of young ducklings with no effective veterinary drugs for treatment. Gynostemma pentaphyllum is a well-known traditional Chinese medicine that plays an important role in the treatment of various diseases. Gypenoside (GP), one of the main ingredients of Gynostemma pentaphyllum, was reported with good hepatoprotective effects. However, its low solubility limits its application in the clinics. To improve its solubility and bioactivity, a phosphorylated derivative of gypenoside (pGP) was prepared by the sodium trimetaphosphate-sodium tripolyphosphate (STMP-STPP) method. An infrared spectroscopy method was applied to analyse the structures of GP and pGP. Then, a methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium (MTT) colorimetric assay was applied to study the hepatocyte protective efficacy of these two drugs against duck hepatitis A virus type 1 (DHAV-1) infection, and qPCR, TUNEL labelling and flow cytometry methods were used to study the relevant hepatocyte protective in vitro.Entities:
Keywords: Apoptosis; Duck hepatitis a virus type 1; Gypenoside; Hepatocyte protective effect; Phosphorylation modification
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31064364 PMCID: PMC6505245 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-019-1891-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1Infrared spectra of GP and pGP. Not: GP: Gypenoside; pGP: phosphorylated gypenoside
The A570 values of different treatments on DEHs when adding virus firstly (n = 6)
| GP Concentration (μg.mL− 1) |
| Hepatocyte protection rate (%) | pGP Concentration (μg.mL− 1) |
| Hepatocyte protection rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 0.338 ± 0.009b | 51.91 | 25 | 0.523 ± 0.008a | 113.42 |
| 50 | 0.229 ± 0.007c | 19.94 | 12.5 | 0.486 ± 0.007b | 97.40 |
| 25 | 0.167 ± 0.010d | 1.76 | 6.25 | 0.458 ± 0.007c | 85.28 |
| 12.5 | 0.174 ± 0.006d | 3.81 | 3.125 | 0.380 ± 0.006d | 51.52 |
| 0(VC) | 0.161 ± 0.006d | 0(VC) | 0.261 ± 0.009e | ||
| 0(CC) | 0.502 ± 0.003a | 0(CC) | 0.492 ± 0.008a |
a-eData in same column without same superscript (a–e) differ significantly(p < 0.05)
GP Gypenoside, pGP phosphorylated gypenoside, VC virus control, CC cell control
A570 values of different treatments when adding drug firstly (n = 6)
| GP Concentration (μg/mL) |
| Hepatocyte protection rate rate (%) | pGP Concentration (μg/mL) |
| Hepatocyte protection rate rate(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 0.351 ± 0.007b | 48.17 | 25 | 0.405 ± 0.007a | 93.55 |
| 50 | 0.298 ± 0.007c | 20.42 | 12.5 | 0.306 ± 0.006b | 40.32 |
| 25 | 0.274 ± 0.012cd | 7.85 | 6.25 | 0.297 ± 0.008b | 35.48 |
| 12.5 | 0.285 ± 0.007cd | 13.61 | 3.125 | 0.276 ± 0.009c | 24.19 |
| 6.25 | 0.279 ± 0.011cd | 10.47 | 1.5625 | 0.269 ± 0.006c | 20.43 |
| 0(VC) | 0.259 ± 0.012d | 0(VC) | 0.231 ± 0.007d | ||
| 0(CC) | 0.450 ± 0.009a | 0(CC) | 0.417 ± 0.008a |
a-dData in same column without same superscript (a–d) differ significantly(p < 0.05)
GP Gypenoside, pGP phosphorylated gypenoside, VC virus control, CC cell control
A570 values of different treatments when adding drug and virus simultaneously (n = 6)
| GP Concentration (μg.mL− 1) |
| Hepatocyte protection rate rate(%) | pGP Concentration (μg.mL− 1) |
| Hepatocyte protection rate rate(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 0.515 ± 0.004a | 108.74 | 25 | 0.509 ± 0.003a | 99.26 |
| 50 | 0.425 ± 0.008b | 59.56 | 12.5 | 0.487 ± 0.005a | 82.96 |
| 25 | 0.374 ± 0.008c | 31.69 | 6.25 | 0.421 ± 0.007b | 34.07 |
| 12.5 | 0.353 ± 0.008d | 20.22 | 3.125 | 0.422 ± 0.010b | 34.81 |
| 6.25 | 0.336 ± 0.008de | 10.93 | 1.563 | 0.401 ± 0.007bc | 19.26 |
| 3.125 | 0.322 ± 0.007e | 3.28 | 0.781 | 0.396 ± 0.007bc | 15.56 |
| 0(VC) | 0.316 ± 0.006e | 0(VC) | 0.375 ± 0.005c | ||
| 0(CC) | 0.499 ± 0.005a | 0(CC) | 0.510 ± 0.005a |
a-eData in same column without same superscript (a–e) differ significantly(P < 0.05)
GP Gypenoside, pGP phosphorylated gypenoside, VC virus control, CC cell control
Fig. 2Influence of GP and pGP on the different phase of DHAV-1 proliferation (n = 4). Note: a: Adsorption (post-adding drug); b: Adsorption (pre-adding drug); c: Replication; d: Release. GP: Gypenoside; pGP: phosphorylated gypenoside; VC: virus control; CC: cell control. Data marked different superscript (a-d) in same figure differ significantly(p<0.05)
Fig. 3Changes of apoptotic cell levels in each group analyzed by TUNEL staining. Note: The apoptotic cells are with brown fluorescence. a Cell control group (CC group); b Virus control group (VC group); c Gypenoside control group (GPC group); d Phosphorylated gypenoside control group (pGPC) group; e: Gypenoside group; f: Phosphorylated gypenoside group
The average brown florescence in each group (%) (n = 5)
| Group | Drug concentration (μg/mL) | Average brown florescence rate (%) |
|---|---|---|
| CC | 0 | 11.70 ± 0.15d |
| VC | 0 | 35.89 ± 1.07a |
| GPC | 100 | 12.81 ± 0.25d |
| pGPC | 25 | 12.42 ± 0.10d |
| GP | 100 | 18.47 ± 0.21b |
| pGP | 25 | 14.99 ± 0.43c |
Note: Data in the same column, marked with different letters indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05). CC group Cell control group, VC group Virus control group, GPC group Gypenoside control group, pGPC Phosphorylated gypenoside control group, E Gypenoside group, F Phosphorylated gypenoside group
Fig. 4Flow cytometry detection of the effects of GP and pGP on apoptosis induced by DHAV-1 (n = 3). Note: a: Cell control group (CC group); b Virus control group (VC group); c Gypenoside control group (GPC group); d Phosphorylated gypenoside control group (pGPC group); e: GP group; f: pGP group. g: The statistical analysis results of apoptotic rate of each group. Data marked different superscript (a-d) in same figure differ significantly(p<0.05)