| Literature DB >> 33208159 |
Sihan Li1,2, Youcheng He1, Haiou Zhang1, Rong Zheng1, Ruoying Xu1, Qihong Liu1, Shuihua Tang1, Xiao Ke3, Minghan Huang4.
Abstract
In this study, the self-extracted constipation treatment of traditional Chinese medicine extracts was applied to constipated rats. To explore the mechanism and role of the Chinese medicine for the treatment of constipation, the 16S rRNA sequencing and qRT-PCR technology were used to analyze the intestinal flora. We found that the relative abundance of Firmicutes with constipation was significantly higher accounted for 86.7%, while the gut microbiota was significantly changed after taking a certain dose of Chinese medicine, greatly increased the relative abundance of Lactobacillus accounted for 23.1%, enhanced the symbiotic relationships of Lactobacillus with other intestinal flora. The total copies of intestinal bacteria in the constipated rats decreased after taking the traditional Chinese medicine. Finally, this study results provides a theoretical basis for the treatment and understand the mechanism and effect of traditional Chinese medicine on rate constipation.Entities:
Keywords: Constipation; Firmicutes; Gut microbiota; Lactobacillus; Traditional Chinese medicine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33208159 PMCID: PMC7672833 DOI: 10.1186/s12934-020-01473-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Cell Fact ISSN: 1475-2859 Impact factor: 5.328
Fig. 1Changes in the diversity of the gut microbiota: a–d the goods coverage, Chao1 index, observed species and Shannon index of six groups; e Cluster based on analysis of hierarchical clustering using unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean to study the similarity between different samples; f non-metric multidimensional scaling method (NMDS) is to simplify the research objects (samples or variables) in multidimensional space to low dimensional space for positioning, analysis and classification. The samples in the same group are all in a circle, which means that the differences between groups are not obvious, while the non-intersection between groups means that there are certain differences between groups; g PCoA plots based on Spearman distances are colored by time point. The significant differences between groups were calculated by analysis of similar (ANOSIM) tests. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01). FC constipation model group, MO mosapride group, DI low dose traditional Chinese medicine group, ZH middle dose traditional Chinese medicine group, GH high dose traditional Chinese medicine group, KO control group. n = 8/group
Fig. 2Composition of the gut microbiota: a the relative contribution of the top 8 phyla in each group; b relative abundance of Firmicutes in six groups, the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01); c Relative abundance of Bacteroides in six groups, the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01); d the relative contribution of the top 30 genera in each group; e relative abundance of Lachnospiraceae in six groups, the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01); f relative abundance of Lactobacillus in six groups, the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01)
Fig. 3Major differential microbial species: a–b Taxonomic cladogram obtained from LEfSe at six groups. Biomarker taxa are highlighted with colored circles and shaded areas. Each circle’s diameter reflects the abundance of those taxa in the community
Fig. 4Co-occurrence network and functional prediction analysis: a co-occurrence network of the control group KO; b co-occurrence network of the FC group; c co-occurrence network of supplementation with high-dose dose of Chinese medicine. Blue indicates positive correlation, red indicates negative correlation. The numbers of nodes and links indicate the tightness of the connection between the bacteria and others, indicating the strength of the symbiotic relationship; d functional gene abundance for the intestinal microbiota; e analysis of gene difference between FC and GA groups
Total copies of intestinal bacteria in each group
| Total bacteria (copy number/g) | FC | MO | DI | ZH | GA | KO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1,482,131,000 | 14,424,390,000 | 1.30734E+11 | 877,964,800 | 2,532,737 | 821,453,400 |
| 2 | 530,056,400 | 66,255,020,000 | 5.94403E+12 | 1,375,961,000 | 45,190,660 | 84,881,970 |
| 3 | 476,350,900 | 14,133,200,000 | 4.09941E E+12 | 65,151,450 | 69,905,180 | 84,399,230 |
| 4 | 3,238,729,000 | 1.35541E+12 | 41,278,390,000 | 16,213,720 | 144,515,900 | 311,785,000 |
| 5 | 216,104,600 | 2.33782E+11 | 52,287,600,000 | 17,307,860 | 84,531,920 | 178,919,400 |
| 6 | 241,080,800 | 9.06385E+13 | 54,849,440,000 | 10,236,970 | 107,940,800 | 168,030,700 |
| 7 | 4,593,153,000 | 65,143,480,000 | 5.61591E+11 | 3,292,147 | 120,057,200 | 820,202,500 |
| 8 | 11,431,060,000 | 63,403,100,000 | 1.96913E+11 | 5,663,928 | 133,493,100 | 490,321,300 |
FC constipation model group, MO mosapride group was given 2 mg/(kg d) gavage, DI low dose group with 5.15 g/(kg d), ZH medium dose group with 10.3 g/(kg d), GA high dose group with 20.6 g/(kg d) doses, KO control group