| Literature DB >> 32328128 |
Rongrong Zhou1,2, Yan Zhu3, Wei Yang4, Fengrong Zhang5, Junwen Wang6, Runhong Yan2, Shihuan Tang7, Zhiyong Li1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulae can be regarded as a source of new antistroke drugs. The aim of this study was to discover herbal pairs containing Gastrodia elata (Tianma, TM) from formulae based on data mining and the Delphi expert questionnaire. The proposed approach for discovering new herbal combinations, which included data mining, a clinical investigation, and a network pharmacology analysis, was evaluated in this study.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32328128 PMCID: PMC7163411 DOI: 10.1155/2020/4263591
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Likert scale on the clinical application of herbal pairs containing RG.
| Degree | Clinical usage level | Grading score (points) |
|---|---|---|
| A | Very commonly used | 5 |
| B | Commonly used | 4 |
| C | Rarely used | 3 |
| D | Little or no use | 2 |
| E | Unclear | 1 |
Selection conditions of clinicians.
| Selection conditions | Requirements of conditions |
|---|---|
| 1. Hospital level | Grade III Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine in China |
| 2. Professional requirements | Internal medicine of TCM |
| 3. Location area | Province with high incidence of stroke in China |
| 4. Working department | Department of Encephalopathy or Neurology of TCM |
| 5. Professional ranks and titles | Deputy Chief Physician and above |
| 6. Educational background | Master of medicine or above |
| 7. Working years | More than 15 years |
Statistical analysis indicators of Delphi method questionnaires.
| Statistical indicators | Concept of indicators | Significance of indicators |
|---|---|---|
| Positive coefficient ( | Recovery rate of the expert survey and consultation questionnaire ( | A high positive coefficient of the clinicians indicates that the clinicians have a high degree of attention and enthusiasm in participating in this research project |
|
| ||
| Concentration degree | Reflects the degree of concentration of clinicians' opinions on the relative importance of various indicators; evaluated by the median, mean, and standard deviation and by the median, mean, standard deviation and percentage | The higher the percentage is, the larger the mean, the smaller the standard deviation, and the more important the CHM in the expert evaluation opinions |
|
| ||
| Degree of coordination (CV) | Reflects the convergence of divergent clinicians' opinions, which is usually expressed by the coefficient of variation and the Kendall harmony coefficient | CV = ( |
| The Kendall harmony coefficient indicates the overall degree of coordination of clinicians' opinions on herbal pairs. The larger the value is, the higher the degree of coordination of clinicians' opinions (its value ranges from 0 to 1) | ||
|
| ||
| Questionnaire reliability ( | Reliability refers to the degree of consistency of the results obtained by repeated measurements of the same object using the same method, which is expressed by Cronbach's alpha |
|
Association rules for herbal pairs containing TM.
| Herbal pairs |
|
|
| Count |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TM ⇒ FF | 44.93 | 97.38 | 1.01 | 855 |
| TM ⇒ QX | 39.15 | 98.68 | 1.02 | 745 |
| TM ⇒ SX | 32.26 | 99.19 | 1.03 | 614 |
| TM ⇒ BFZ | 31.79 | 99.18 | 1.03 | 605 |
| TM ⇒ JC | 31.16 | 98.67 | 1.02 | 593 |
| TM ⇒ QH | 30.69 | 97.33 | 1.01 | 584 |
| TM ⇒ ZS | 28.06 | 98.16 | 1.02 | 534 |
| TM ⇒ TNX | 27.59 | 98.87 | 1.02 | 525 |
| TM ⇒ RS | 24.65 | 97.91 | 1.01 | 469 |
| TM ⇒ FZ | 19.44 | 98.40 | 1.02 | 370 |
| TM ⇒ MH | 19.02 | 99.18 | 1.03 | 362 |
| TM ⇒ RG | 18.29 | 98.86 | 1.02 | 348 |
| TM ⇒ DH | 16.82 | 97.86 | 1.01 | 320 |
| TM ⇒ BX | 16.71 | 97.55 | 1.01 | 318 |
| TM ⇒ NH | 16.55 | 98.75 | 1.02 | 315 |
| TM ⇒ NX | 13.87 | 97.42 | 1.01 | 264 |
| TM ⇒ XX | 13.77 | 97.76 | 1.01 | 262 |
| TM ⇒ MX | 13.56 | 97.36 | 1.01 | 258 |
| TM ⇒ XH | 12.77 | 98.38 | 1.02 | 243 |
| TM ⇒ WSS | 12.45 | 99.58 | 1.03 | 237 |
Notes: only high-frequency herbal pairs containing TM are shown. The names of CHMs are expressed as medical names, Latin names, Pinyin names, and abbreviations. GASTRODIAE RHIZOMA (Rhizoma Gastrodiae, Tianma, TM), SAPOSHNIKOVIAE RADIX (Radix Saposhnikoviae, Fangfeng, FF), SCORPIO (Scorpion, Quanxie, QX), MOSCHUS (Moschus, Shexiang, SX), TYPHONII RHIZOMA (Rhizoma Typhonii, Baifuzi, BFZ), BOMBYX BATRYTICATUS (Bombyx Batryticatus, Jiangcan, JC), NOTOPTERYGII RHIZOMA ET RADIX (Rhizoma et Radix Notopterygii, Qianghuo, QH), CINNABARIS (Cinnabaris, Zhusha, ZS), ARISAEMATIS RHIZOMA (Rhizoma Arisaematis, Tiannanxing, TNX), GINSENG RADIX ET RHIZOMA (Radix Ginseng, Renshen, RS), ACONITI LATERALIS RADIX PRAEPARATA (Radix Aconiti Lateralis Preparata, Fuzi, FZ), EPHEDRAE HERBA (Herba Ephedra, Mahuang, MH), CINNAMOMI CORTEX (Cortex Cinnamomi, Rougui, RG), ANGELICAE PUBESCENTIS RADIX (Radix Angelicae Pubescentis, Duhuo, DH), PINELLIAE RHIZOMA (Rhizoma Pinelliae, Banxia, BX), BOVIS CALCULUS (Calculus Bovis, Niuhuang, NH), ACHYRANTHIS BIDENTATAE RADIX (Radix Achyranthis Bidentatae, Niuxi, NX), ASARI RADIX ET RHIZOMA (Herba Asari, Xixin, XX), AUCKLANDIAE RADIX (Radix Aucklandiae, Muxiang, MX), REALGAR (Realgar, Xionghuang, XH), and ZAOCYS (Zaocys, Wushaoshe, WSS).
Statistics of the clinician's information from the Delphi questionnaires.
| Information on clinicians | Expert selection criteria | Number of qualified clinicians in the first round of surveys (%) | Number of qualified clinicians in the second round of surveys (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Working years | More than 15 years | 8 (44) | 8 (40) |
| Professional ranks and titles | Deputy Chief Physician and above | 18 (100) | 18 (90) |
| Educational background | Master degree or above | 17 (94) | 19 (95) |
| Working department | Department of Encephalopathy or Neurology of TCM | 18 (100) | 20 (100) |
| Professional requirements | Internal medicine of TCM | 18 (100) | 20 (100) |
| Location area | Province with high incidence of stroke | 18 (100) | 20 (100) |
| Hospital level | Grade III Hospital of TCM | 8 (44) | 8 (40) |
Distribution of expert opinions on the clinical application of herbal pairs containing TM.
| Herbal pairs | Rounds | Maximum values | Minimum values | Median | Mean | Standard deviation (SD) | Full score ratio (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TM ⇒ GT | 1 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4.33 | 0.49 | 100.0 |
| TM ⇒ MJZ | 2 | 5 | 1 | 4.5 | 4.33 | 0.97 | 100.0 |
| TM ⇒ JMZ | 2 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 4.11 | 1.18 | 100.0 |
| TM ⇒ BS | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4.22 | 0.55 | 95.0 |
| TM ⇒ JH | 2 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4.72 | 0.46 | 94.4 |
| TM ⇒ SJM | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4.56 | 0.62 | 94.4 |
| TM ⇒ DZ | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3.94 | 0.42 | 89.0 |
| TM ⇒ CX | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4.11 | 0.58 | 89.0 |
| TM ⇒ SCP | 2 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4.39 | 0.61 | 88.9 |
| TM ⇒ DL | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3.89 | 0.47 | 83.0 |
| TM ⇒ NX | 1 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3.78 | 0.94 | 83.0 |
| TM ⇒ BX | 1 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3.67 | 0.97 | 83.0 |
| TM ⇒ JC | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3.78 | 0.43 | 78.0 |
| TM ⇒ QX | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3.89 | 0.58 | 78.0 |
| TM ⇒ CS | 1 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3.78 | 0.88 | 78.0 |
| TM ⇒ SM | 2 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 2.39 | 1.42 | 72.2 |
| TM ⇒ CP | 2 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 3.50 | 1.58 | 72.2 |
| TM ⇒ ML | 2 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 3.39 | 1.69 | 72.2 |
| TM ⇒ DNX | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 3.61 | 0.78 | 72.0 |
| TM ⇒ GG | 2 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4.61 | 0.50 | 66.7 |
| TM ⇒ CWJ | 2 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 3.56 | 1.62 | 66.7 |
| TM ⇒ QH | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3.56 | 0.51 | 56.0 |
| TM ⇒ DH | 1 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3.33 | 0.97 | 50.0 |
| TM ⇒ SQ | 2 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 3.39 | 1.54 | 50.0 |
| TM ⇒ XX | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3.22 | 0.81 | 39.0 |
| TM ⇒ BFZ | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3.17 | 0.86 | 39.0 |
| TM ⇒ FF | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3.17 | 0.86 | 39.0 |
| TM ⇒ TNX | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2.83 | 0.99 | 33.0 |
| TM ⇒ MX | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2.89 | 0.90 | 28.0 |
| TM ⇒ SR | 2 | 5 | 0 | 3.5 | 2.94 | 1.51 | 27.8 |
| TM ⇒ FZ | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2.83 | 0.86 | 22.0 |
| TM ⇒ MH | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2.61 | 0.85 | 17.0 |
| TM ⇒ RS | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2.61 | 0.85 | 17.0 |
| TM ⇒ NH | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2.61 | 0.78 | 11.0 |
| TM ⇒ RG | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2.67 | 0.69 | 6.0 |
| TM ⇒ SX | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2.56 | 0.92 | 6.0 |
| TM ⇒ XH | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2.17 | 0.51 | 0.0 |
| TM ⇒ ZS | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2.17 | 0.51 | 0.0 |
| TM ⇒ BP | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2.39 | 0.61 | 0.0 |
Notes: only high-frequency herbal pairs containing TM are shown. The names of Chinese herbal medicines are expressed as medical names, Latin names, Pinyin names, and abbreviations. UNCARIAE RAMULUS CUM UNCIS (Ramulus Uncariae Cum Uncis, Gouteng, GT), VITICIS FRUCTUS (Fructus Viticis, Manjingzi, MJZ), CASSIAE SEMEN (Semen Cassiae, Juemingzi, JMZ), PAEONIAE RADIX ALBA (Radix Paeoniae Alba, Baishao, BS), CHRYSANTHEMI FLOS (Flos Chrysanthemi, Juhua, JH), HALIOTIDIS CONCHA (Concha Haliotidis, Shijueming, SJM), EUCOMMIAE CORTEX (Cortex Eucommiae, Duzhong, DZ), CHUANXIONG RHIZOMA (Rhizoma Ligustici Chuanxiong, Chuanxiong, CX), ACORI TATARINOWII RHIZOMA (Rhizoma Acori Tatarinowii, Shichangpu, SCP), PHERETIMA (Lumbricus, Dilong, DL), PAEONIAE RADIX RUBRA (Radix Paeoniae Rubra, Chishao, CS), SAPPAN LIGNUM (Lignum Sappan, Sumu, SM), CITRI RETICULATAE PERICARPIUM (Pericarpium Citri Reticulatae, Chenpi, CP), OSTREAE CONCHA (Concha Ostreae, Muli, ML), ARISAEMA CUM BILE (Rhizoma Arisaematis Cum Bile, Dannanxing, DNX), PUERARIAE LOBATAE RADIX (Radix Puerariae, Gegen, GG), ACANTHOPANACIS SENTICOSI RADIX ET RHIZOMA SEU CAULIS (Radix et Caulis Acanthopanacis Senticosi, Ciwujia, CWJ), NOTOGINSENG RADIX ET RHIZOMA (Radix Notoginseng, Sanqi, SQ), AMOMI FRUCTUS (Fructus Amomi Villosi, Sharen, SR), and BORNEOLUM SYNTHETICUM (Borneolum Syntheticum, Bingpian, BP).
Coefficient of variation in the two rounds of the expert questionnaire.
| Herbal pairs in the first round | CV (%) |
|---|---|
| TM ⇒ DZ | 10.55 |
| TM ⇒ GT | 11.2 |
| TM ⇒ JC | 11.32 |
| TM ⇒ DL | 12.12 |
| TM ⇒ BS | 12.99 |
| TM ⇒ CX | 14.18 |
| TM ⇒ QH | 14.38 |
| TM ⇒ QX | 14.99 |
| TM ⇒ DNX | 21.53 |
| TM ⇒ CS | 23.25 |
| TM ⇒ XH | 23.74 |
| TM ⇒ ZS | 23.74 |
| TM ⇒ NX | 24.96 |
| TM ⇒ XX | 25.09 |
| TM ⇒ BP | 25.44 |
| TM ⇒ RG | 25.72 |
| TM ⇒ BX | 26.45 |
| TM ⇒ BFZ | 27.08 |
| TM ⇒ FF | 27.08 |
| TM ⇒ DH | 29.11 |
| TM ⇒ NH | 29.78 |
| TM ⇒ FZ | 30.27 |
| TM ⇒ MX | 31.16 |
| TM ⇒ MH | 32.55 |
| TM ⇒ RS | 32.55 |
| TM ⇒ TNX | 34.78 |
| TM ⇒ SX | 36.06 |
| TM ⇒ JH | 9.76 |
| TM ⇒ GG | 10.88 |
| TM ⇒ JMZ | 13.93 |
| TM ⇒ SCP | 13.85 |
| TM ⇒ SJM | 13.51 |
| TM ⇒ MJZ | 22.39 |
| TM ⇒ CP | 25.34 |
| TM ⇒ CWJ | 25.82 |
| TM ⇒ SQ | 25.73 |
| TM ⇒ ML | 32.07 |
| TM ⇒ SR | 34.36 |
| TM ⇒ SM | 44.48 |
Weightiness analysis of herbal pairs containing TM.
| Herbal pairs | Dimensionless value of the data mining results ( | Dimensionless value of the statistical results of expert survey ( | Weight value ( | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TM ⇒ QX | 0.868 | 0.674 | 0.771 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ FF | 1.000 | 0.391 | 0.696 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ JC | 0.685 | 0.630 | 0.658 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ CX | 0.501 | 0.761 | 0.631 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ QH | 0.674 | 0.544 | 0.609 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ BFZ | 0.699 | 0.391 | 0.545 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ JH | 0.019 | 1.000 | 0.510 | Expert provision |
| TM ⇒ GG | 0.021 | 0.957 | 0.489 | Expert provision |
| TM ⇒ MJZ | 0.105 | 0.848 | 0.477 | Expert provision |
| TM ⇒ SCP | 0.081 | 0.870 | 0.476 | Expert provision |
| TM ⇒ BX | 0.354 | 0.587 | 0.471 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ SJM | 0.000 | 0.935 | 0.468 | Expert provision |
| TM ⇒ NX | 0.289 | 0.630 | 0.460 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ GT | 0.052 | 0.848 | 0.450 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ BS | 0.065 | 0.804 | 0.435 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ TNX | 0.603 | 0.261 | 0.432 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ SX | 0.710 | 0.152 | 0.431 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ DH | 0.356 | 0.456 | 0.406 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ JMZ | 0.000 | 0.761 | 0.381 | Expert provision |
| TM ⇒ DZ | 0.066 | 0.695 | 0.381 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ DL | 0.055 | 0.674 | 0.365 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ RS | 0.536 | 0.174 | 0.355 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ XX | 0.286 | 0.413 | 0.350 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ DNX | 0.128 | 0.565 | 0.347 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ CS | 0.059 | 0.630 | 0.345 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ FZ | 0.416 | 0.261 | 0.339 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ CP | 0.112 | 0.522 | 0.317 | Expert provision |
| TM ⇒ ZS | 0.614 | 0.000 | 0.307 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ RG | 0.390 | 0.196 | 0.293 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ MH | 0.407 | 0.174 | 0.291 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ MX | 0.282 | 0.283 | 0.283 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ CWJ | 0.000 | 0.543 | 0.272 | Expert provision |
| TM ⇒ NH | 0.350 | 0.174 | 0.262 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ ML | 0.000 | 0.478 | 0.239 | Expert provision |
| TM ⇒ SQ | 0.000 | 0.478 | 0.239 | Expert provision |
| TM ⇒ SR | 0.000 | 0.304 | 0.152 | Expert provision |
| TM ⇒ XH | 0.264 | 0.000 | 0.132 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ BP | 0.090 | 0.087 | 0.089 | Data mining |
| TM ⇒ SM | 0.000 | 0.087 | 0.044 | Expert provision |
Figure 1BOILED-Egg chart of CHM. (a) TM. (b) JH. (c) CX. Note: the white area shows the physicochemical space of the molecule with the highest probability of absorption in the gastrointestinal tract, while the yellow area (yolk) shows the physicochemical space of the molecule with the highest probability of penetration into the brain. Yellow and white areas are not mutually exclusive. Blue dots represent molecules that are better absorbed by the intestine; red dots represent molecules that are more permeable to the brain.
Figure 2Venny diagram of both the targets of stroke and herbal pairs.
Figure 3After constructing the interaction map between the known targets of stroke and the potential targets of TM-CX, a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network was developed to identify the 17 interactive core targets.
Figure 4Cluster analysis from the MCODE plugin of Cytoscape resulted in PPI networks.
Figure 5After constructing the interaction map between the known targets of stroke and the potential targets of TM-JH, the protein-protein interaction (PPI) network was produced to identify the 14 interactive core targets.
Figure 6Cluster analysis from the MCODE plugin of Cytoscape resulted in PPI networks.
Information on core targets relevant to TM-CX.
| Target name | Protein name | Degree | Average shortest path length | Betweenness centrality | Closeness centrality | Clustering coefficient | MCODE score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PTGS2 | Prostaglandin G/H synthase 2 | 7 | 1.36 | 0.22 | 0.73 | 0.38 | 1.57 |
| NOS2 | Nitric oxide synthase, inducible | 3 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 1.80 |
| NOS1 | Nitric oxide synthase, brain | 3 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 1.80 |
| APP | Amyloid-beta precursor protein | 8 | 1.27 | 0.43 | 0.79 | 0.25 | 1.80 |
| F2 | Prothrombin | 4 | 1.64 | 0.18 | 0.61 | 0.50 | 1.80 |
| ACE | Angiotensin-converting enzyme | 6 | 1.45 | 0.16 | 0.69 | 0.47 | 1.57 |
Information on the core targets relevant to TM-JH.
| Target name | Protein name | Degree | Average shortest path length | Betweenness centrality | Closeness centrality | Clustering coefficient | MCODE score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APP | Amyloid-beta precursor protein | 6 | 1.25 | 0.24 | 0.80 | 0.47 | 1.80 |
| ACE | Angiotensin-converting enzyme | 6 | 1.25 | 0.15 | 0.80 | 0.60 | 1.61 |
| PTGS2 | Prostaglandin G/H synthase 2 | 6 | 1.25 | 0.17 | 0.80 | 0.53 | 1.71 |
| MMP9 | Matrix metalloproteinase-9 | 5 | 1.38 | 0.06 | 0.73 | 0.70 | 1.71 |
| LDLR | Low-density lipoprotein receptor | 4 | 1.50 | 0.06 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 1.80 |
| NOS2 | Nitric oxide synthase, inducible | 4 | 1.63 | 0.01 | 0.62 | 0.83 | 1.80 |
| NOS1 | Nitric oxide synthase, brain | 3 | 1.75 | 0.00 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 1.80 |
Figure 7Biological functions and molecular pathways from all core targets relevant to TM-CX in stroke, with the top 20 biological processes screened and classified.
Figure 8Biological functions and molecular pathways from all core targets relevant to TM-JH in stroke, with the top 20 biological processes screened and classified.
Figure 9The herbal pair-compound-core target-pathway network.
Figure 10Technical route and results diagram.