| Literature DB >> 32082169 |
Jianqing Chen1,2, Hongliang Yang1,3, Zunlai Sheng1,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute diarrhea is still a common and serious disease. The causes of acute diarrhea are very complicated. Therefore, we need to find a medicine to control diarrhea symptoms, save time for diagnosis of pathogens, and prevent drug abuse. Ellagic acid (EA), a natural polyphenol drug, has anti-diarrhea effects. However, the action mechanisms of EA for non-specific diarrhea have not been characterized.Entities:
Keywords: PPAR signaling pathway; castor oil; diarrhea; ellagic acid; transcriptome
Year: 2020 PMID: 32082169 PMCID: PMC7005255 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01681
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.810
Gene-special primers used in qRT-PCR.
| Gene | Forward (5 → 3) | Reverse (5 → 3) |
|---|---|---|
| Ccr6 | GTGTGGCAGTGTGGTTCATCTCC | GTGGCTCACAGACATCACGATCC |
| Cd36 | GCGACATGATTAATGGCACAGACG | CCGAACACAGCGTAGATAGACCTG |
| Cyp2e1 | AAGGACGTGCGGAGGTTTTCC | TACATGGGTTCTTGGCTGTGT |
| GPx | CGCTTTCGTACCATCGACATC | GGGCCGCCTTAGGAGTTG |
| H2-Ob | CACAACCTGCTGCTCTGCTCTG | GACCTCTCCTCCTGTCCATTCCG |
| IL-1β | GCAACTGTTCCTGAACTCAACT | ATCTTTTGGGGTCCGTCAACT |
| IL-6 | GGAGCCCACCAAGAACGATA | ACCAGCATCAGTCCCAAGAA |
| NF-κB | TCTCTATGACCTGGACGACTCTT | GCTCATACGGTTTCCCATTTAGT |
| PPAR-γ | CCAGAGCATGGTGCCTTCGCT | CAGCAACCATTGGGTCAGCTC |
| Sod | GTG ATTGGG ATTGCGCAG TA | TGGTTTGAG GGTAGCAGATGAGT |
| TNF-α | CCCTCACACTCAGATCATCTTCT | GCTACGACGTGGGCTACAG |
| β-actin | GTGCTATGTTGCTCTAGACTTCG | ATGCCACAGGATTCCATACC |
Effect of EA on castor oil-induced diarrhea in mice.
| Group | C | D | E | V |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mass of stool (Mean ± SD (g)) | 0 | 0.75 ± 0.12 | 0.23 ± 0.02** | 0.65 ± 0.03* |
| Fecal output (%) | 0 | 100 | 30.67 | 86.67 |
| Onset of diarrhea (Mean ± SD (min)) | – | 30.12 ± 1.96 | 84.74 ± 3.84** | 35.33 ± 6.20 |
| No. of animals exhibiting diarrhea | 0 | 10/10 | 2/10 | 10/10 |
| Percentage Episode inhibition (%) | – | 0 | 80.0 | 0 |
*represented significant difference (P < 0.05). **represented significant difference (P < 0.01). Statistical significance was evaluated by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test.
Figure 1Ileums slices using HE staining. (A–D) were in the 400 × magnification.
Figure 2Determination of redox biomarker. **represented significant difference (P < 0.01). Statistical significance was evaluated by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test.
Figure 3Determination of proinflammatory factors. **represented significant difference (P < 0.01). Statistical significance was evaluated by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test.
Summary statistics of the transcriptome sequencing from group D and group E.
| Sample | Raw reads | Clean reads | Clean base ratio (%) | Error rate(%) | Q20 (%) | Q30 (%) | GC content(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 106,567,752 | 106,530,110 | 99.96 | 0.0205 | 97.51 | 93.68 | 53.58 |
|
| 100,936,974 | 100,899,108 | 99.96 | 0.0356 | 97.12 | 92.74 | 53.71 |
|
| 116,141,362 | 116,125,974 | 99.99 | 0.0286 | 97.69 | 94.21 | 52.29 |
|
| 104,686,394 | 104,665,316 | 99.98 | 0.0217 | 97.57 | 93.95 | 52.44 |
Figure 4The figure of DEGs. (A) Volcano plot of distribution trends for DEGs in group D and group E. The log2 [fold change (group D/group E)] indicated the mean expression level for each gene. Each dot represented one gene. Red dots represented upregulated genes and green dots represented down-regulated genes. Blue dots represented genes with no differential expression. (B) Hierarchal clustering heat map of group D and group E.
Figure 5GO and KEGG analysis of DEGs. (A) The top 10 GO terms of BP, MF, and CC. (B) The top 30 DEGs heatmaps of BP, MF, and CC. (C) 15 pathways of DEGs using KEGG enrichment analysis.
Figure 6Comparison of DEGs and qRT-PCR confirmation.