| Literature DB >> 31293341 |
Feng Zhu1, Yong-Min Li2, Ting-Ting Feng1, Yue Wu1, Hai-Xia Zhang1, Guo-Yin Jin1, Jian-Ping Liu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common chronic liver disease worldwide. However, to date, there is no ideal therapy for this disease. AIM: To study the effects of Si-Ni-San freeze-dried powder on high fat diet-induced NAFLD in mice.Entities:
Keywords: High fat diet; Inflammation; Intestinal microbiota; Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; Si-Ni-San
Year: 2019 PMID: 31293341 PMCID: PMC6603807 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i24.3056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Five major constituents in Si-Ni-San freeze-dried powder
| Contents | 89.5 ± 0.02 | 458.2 ± 0.03 | 143.4 ± 0.03 | 138.3 ± 0.02 | 140.3 ± 0.01 |
Data expressed as mean ± SD (n = 5).
Composition of diets
| Casein | 212.33 | 261.02 |
| L-Cystine | 2.84 | 3.50 |
| Corn starch | 275.84 | 56.87 |
| Maltodextrin | 33.18 | 116.53 |
| Sucrose | 331.77 | 201.36 |
| Cellulose | 47.40 | 58.26 |
| Soybean oil | 23.70 | 29.13 |
| Lard | 18.96 | 206.84 |
| Mineral mix | 9.84 | 11.65 |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 12.32 | 15.15 |
| Calcium carbonate | 5.21 | 6.41 |
| Potassium citrate | 15.64 | 19.23 |
| Vitamin mix | 9.48 | 11.56 |
| Choline bitartrate | 1.90 | 2.33 |
| FD&C dye | 0.047 | 0.058 |
Figure 1Effects of Si-Ni-San freeze-dried powder on body weight, liver index and visceral fat index. A: Body weight at 12 wk; B: Liver index (liver weight/body weight); C: Visceral fat index (visceral fat weight/body weight). aP < 0.05 vs CON group mice, bP < 0.05 vs FAT group mice.
Figure 2Si-Ni-San freeze-dried powder ameliorates liver inflammation and injury. A: Portal lipopolysaccharide; B: Liver tumor necrosis factor-α; C: Serum alanine aminotransferase. aP < 0.05 vs CON group mice, bP < 0.05 vs FAT group mice. ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; LPS: Lipopolysaccharide; TNF-α: Tumor necrosis factor-α.
Figure 3Si-Ni-San freeze-dried powder ameliorates high fat diet-induced hepatic triglyceride accumulation. A: Representative Oil Red O staining (magnification 200 ×); B: Liver triglycerides. aP < 0.05 vs CON group mice, bP < 0.05 vs FAT group mice.
Figure 4Intestinal microbiota composition in different group samples. A: Venn diagram of operational taxonomic units; B: Rarefaction curves; C: Unweighted Uni Frac PCo A. OUTs: Operational taxonomic units.
Figure 5Bacterial biomarkers of different group samples. A: Bacterial biomarkers found by linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe); B: Taxonomic cladogram obtained from LEfSe. Taxa meeting an linear discriminant analysis significant threshold > 4 are shown. c: class level; f: family level; g: genus level; o: order level; p: phylum level. LDA: Linear discriminant analysis.
Figure 6Intestinal microbiota functions in different group samples. A: Functional biomarkers found by linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe); B: Functional cladogram obtained from LEfSe. Functions meeting an linear discriminant analysis significant threshold > 3.1 are shown. LDA: Linear discriminant analysis.