| Literature DB >> 31949469 |
Qi-da He1,2, Miao-Sen Huang1,2, Long-Bin Zhang1, Jia-Cheng Shen1, Lin-Yu Lian1,2, Yuan Zhang1,3, Bao-Hua Chen1, Cai-Chun Liu1, Lin-Chao Qian1, Mi Liu3, Zong-Bao Yang1.
Abstract
In Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), moxibustion had been used for thousands of years. Many clinical case reports and scientific studies had proved that moxibustion had a good effect in treating acute gastric ulcer (AGU). Some studies had shown that the relative content and species of bacteria in the intestinal would be changed when gastric mucosal injury happened. However, there was little research on the effect of intestinal microbiome with AGU rats that were treating by moxibustion. This study is aimed at analyzing the effect of fecal microbiome in rats with AGU by the 16S rDNA sequencing technology. Male SD rats were established by orally feeding once with 70% ethanol at 4 ml/kg except the control group, then treated by moxibustion in the stomach meridian group ("Liangmen," "Zusanli") and the gallbladder meridian group ("Riyue," "Yanglingquan") for 5 days. The 16S rDNA sequencing technology analysis of feces combined with histopathological methods and molecular biological detection methods was used to evaluate the therapeutic mechanism of moxibustion on AGU. AGU brought cause changes in the number and species of intestinal bacteria. Moxibustion on stomach meridian group could reduce the area of gastric mucosal injury and regulate the relative content of GAS and EGF. Moreover, moxibustion on the stomach meridian group could increase the relative content and species of beneficial bacteria in the intestine of rats with AGU. The relative abundance of intestinal probiotics was significantly upregulated in Alphaproteobacteria, Actinomycetales, and Bacillales. In addition, moxibustion might promote the repair of gastric mucosal injury by increasing the number and species of beneficial bacteria in the intestine.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31949469 PMCID: PMC6948313 DOI: 10.1155/2019/6184205
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Comparison of gastric mucosal morphology between the (a) control group and (b) AGU group of rats.
Gastric ulcer index in all groups.
| Groups | Ulcer index |
|---|---|
| Control | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| AGU | 6.83 ± 1.33Δ# |
| ST | 2.50 ± 1.22 |
| GB | 6.67 ± 0.81Δ# |
Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean. Δsignificant difference from the control group at P < 0.05, significant difference from the AGU group at P < 0.05, #means difference from the ST group at P > 0.05.
Figure 2Pathological morphology examination of gastric mucosa in rats of each group. (a, b), mean controls; (c, d), mean AGU groups; (e, f), mean ST group; and (g, h), mean GB group. The scale bars in a c, e, and g represent 200 μm, and the scale bars in b, d, f, and h represent 50 μm.
Figure 3The expression of GAS and EGF in gastric mucosa in rats of each group (Δsignificant difference from the control group at P < 0.05, significant difference from the AGU group at P < 0.05, #means difference from the ST group at P > 0.05).
Figure 4OUT abundance of feces in each group (Δsignificant difference from the control group at P < 0.05, significant difference from the AGU group at P < 0.05, #means difference from the ST group at P > 0.05).
Figure 5Analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) and PCA analysis in (a, b) the AGU group and ST group and (c, d) the AGU group and GB group.
Figure 6The histogram of LDA value distribution in four groups. Three species with the most difference significantly were selected in four groups.