| Literature DB >> 33262572 |
Yanxia Huang1,2, Jiatong Lin1,3, Weimin Yi1,2, Qinghua Liu1,4, Linhui Cao1,2, Yongcong Yan1,4, Anqi Fu5, Tingxuan Huang5, Yingcheng Lyu1,3, Qihui Huang1,2, Jie Wang1,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer was still one of the commonly diagnosed cancer types and the third-most common cause of cancer-related death in the world. Gentiopicroside, which is extracted from the Gentianella acuta, is commonly used in both traditional treatment and modern clinical care; therefore, its anticancer effects have been attracted more attention. However, the systematic analysis of action mechanism of Gentiopicroside on gastric cancer (GC) has not yet been carried out. AIM: A network pharmacology-based strategy combined with molecular docking studies and in vitro validation was employed to investigate potential targets and molecular mechanism of Gentiopicroside against GC.Entities:
Keywords: Gentiopicroside; gastric cancer; mechanism; molecular docking; network pharmacology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33262572 PMCID: PMC7700081 DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S270757
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther ISSN: 1177-8881 Impact factor: 4.162
Figure 1Workflow for the identification potential mechanism of Gentiopicroside in treating gastric cancer.
Figure 2The venn diagram of the targets both in gastric cancer targets and Gentiopicroside targets.
Figure 3Construction of the protein–protein interaction network of Gentiopicroside and gastric cancer’ associated targets. (A) Clusters of screened PPI networks. (B) The top 10 potential effective targets in gastric cancer.
Figure 4GO analysis and KEGG analysis for the major targets of Gentiopicroside. (A) GO map of putative target genes. (B) KEGG pathway analysis of putative target genes.
Figure 5Drug-GC-targets-Pathways PPI network (The red, blue, pink and green nodes represent the disease, Pathways, targets and compound; respectively, the edges represent the interactions among them).
Figure 6Molecular docking. (A) Stereogram of the interaction between CCND1 and Gentiopicroside. (B) Plane chart of the interaction between CCND1 and Gentiopicroside.
Figure 7(A) Gentiopicroside displayed a significant growth inhibition in GC cells with IC50 values. (B) Gentiopicroside suppressed HGC-27 cells proliferation significantly under the concentration of 0, 25, 50,100, 200, 400 μM with 24 h, 48 h and 72h incubation, respectively. (*P<0.05, **P<0.01).
Figure 8(A) Gentiopicroside suppressed HGC-27 cell apoptosis significantly under the concentration of 100 μM with 48 h incubation, respectively. (B) Gentiopicroside suppressed HGC-27 cell cycle significantly under the concentration of 100 μM with 48 h incubation, respectively. (*P<0.05, **P<0.01).
Figure 9Effects of Gentiopicroside and LY294002 on the expression of PI3K/AKT pathway in HGC-27 cells. (A) WB confirmed that Gentiopicroside reduced CCND1, CCNE1 and p-AKT protein expression. While p-P38 significantly increased after stimulation with Gentiopicroside for 48 h. (B) HGC-27 cells were treated with Gentiopicroside and LY294002 as indicated, AKT, P38, p-P38 and p-AKT protein levels were determined using Western blotting.