| Literature DB >> 33815106 |
Dwi Cahyani Ratna Sari1, Santosa Budiharjo1, Husnari Afifah2, Destantry Jasmin2, Orisativa Kokasih2, Tiara Gitami Putri2, Karina Arifiani3, Wiwit Ananda Wahyu Setyaningsih1, Nur Arfian1.
Abstract
Background: Kidney fibrosis is the common final pathway of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and is characterized by inflammation, mesenchymal transition with myofibroblast formation and epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT). Centella asiatia (CeA) is an herb that has a reno-protective effect. However, its mechanism of action in kidney fibrosis has not been elucidated. Aim: To elucidate the effect of CeA in amelioration of kidney fibrosis in a unilateral ureteral obstruction (UUO) model and focus on mesenchymal transition and inflammation.Entities:
Keywords: Centella asiatica; inflammation; kidney fibrosis; mesenchymal transition; unilateral ureteral obstruction
Year: 2021 PMID: 33815106 PMCID: PMC8010664 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.621894
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.810
FIGURE 1CeA treatment attenuated fibrosis. (A) Representative picture of tubulointerstitial fibrosis based on Sirius Red staining demonstrated red color staining of fibrosis in interstitial areas. (B) Quantification of interstitial fibrosis area fraction from SR staining. (C) Western blot analysis of aSMA protein expression. (D) Representative results and analysis of Collagen-1 and TGF‐β mRNA expression based on RT‐PCR. *p < 0.05 vs SO; **p < 0.001 vs SO, #p < 0.05 vs UUO; ##p < 0.01 vs UUO, ‡p < 0.05 vs U+C210, ‡‡p < 0.01 vs U+C210.
FIGURE 2CeA treatment attenuated mesenchymal transition with downregulation of FSP-1 and snail mRNA expression. (A) Immunotaining of fibroblast (PDGFR-β) and myofibroblast (α-SMA). Fibroblast were stained in interstitial areas of SO group, meanwhile fibroblast expansion occurred in UUO as shown by expansion of positive staining in interstitial areas (white arrows). Positive staining of α-SMA showed smooth muscle cells of vessels (black arrows) in SO, meanwhile α-SMA revealed myofibroblast in interstitial areas of UUO group (grey arrows). (B) Double immunofluorescence staining demonstrated colocalization of fibroblast (red) and myofibroblast (green) which revealed fibroblast to myofibroblast transition. (C,D) Representative picture and semiquantitative analysis of RT-PCR analysis showed Snail and FSP-1 mRNA expressions.
FIGURE 3CeA treatment ameliorated tubular injury with upregulation of E-cadherin. (A) Representative figures of tubular injury shown by PAS staining. SO group demonstrated normal kidney architecture with brush border and intact tubules (black arrows). UUO group represented tubular injury with brush border loss, tubular dilatation and tubular epithelial cells effacement (white arrows). Ameliration of tubular injury in CeA treated group with brush border availability. (B) Bar charts showing tubular injury score. (C,D) Representative pictures and densitometry analysis of gel electrophoresis results of Vimentin and E‐Cadherin mRNA expressions based on RT‐PCR. *p < 0.05 vs SO; **p < 0.001 vs SO, #p < 0.05 vs UUO; ##p < 0.01 vs UUO, ‡p < 0.05 vs U+C210, ‡‡p < 0.01 vs U+C210.
FIGURE 4CeA treatment attenuated inflammation. (A) Immunostaining of MCP‐1 demonstrated no staining in SO group, however positive staining in epithelial cells and interstitial areas of kidney from UUO group (white arrows). (B) Histopathological appearance of each group shown in immunostaining for CD‐68. (C,D) Representative picture and semiquantitative analysis of electrophoresis results of RT‐PCR analysis showing CD‐68, MCP‐1, and TLR‐4 mRNA expressions. *p < 0.05 vs SO; **p < 0.01 VS SO, ***p < 0.001 vs SO, #p < 0.05 vs UUO; ##p < 0.01 vs UUO, ‡p < 0.05 vs U+C210, ‡‡p < 0.01 vs U+C210.
| No | Genes | Sequences | Annealing temperature (°C) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Snail | F | 5′-CTGCTTCGAGCCATAGAACTAAAG-3′ | 51 |
| R | 5′-GAGGGGAACTATTGCATAGTCTGT-3′ | |||
| 2 | E-cadherin | F | 5′-CAGCCTTCTTTTCGGAAGACT-3′ | 58 |
| R | 5′-GGTAGACAGCTCCCTATGACTG-3′ | |||
| 3 | Vimentin | F | 5′-CGGAAAGTGGAATCCTTGCA-3′ | 58 |
| R | 5′-CACATCGATCTGGACATGCTG-3′ | |||
| 4 | Fibroblast-specific protein 1 (FSP-1) | F | 5′-GATGAGCAACTTGGACAGCA-3′ | 53 |
| R | 5′-ATGTGCGAAGAAGCCAGAGT-3′ | |||
| 5 | CD68 | F | 5′-CATCAGAGCCCGAGTACAGTCTACC-3′ | 60 |
| R | 5′-AATTCTGCGCCATGAATGTCC-3′ | |||
| 6 | TLR4 | F | 5′-GGGCCTAAACCCAGTCTGTTTG-3′ | 57 |
| R | 5′-GCCCGGTAAGGTCCATGCTA-3′ | |||
| 7 | MCP-1 | F | 5′-CTACAGACAACCACCTCAAGCACTTCTGTAG-3′ | 60 |
| R | 5′-GGCATCACAGTCCGAGTCACAC-3′ | |||
| 8 | Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) | F | 5′-TCAACAGCAACTCCCACTCTTCCA-3′ | 57 |
| R | 5′-ACCCTGTTGCTGTAGCCGTATTCA-3′ | |||
| 9 | Transforming growth factor- β (TGF-β) | F | TTCCGCTGCTACTGCAAGTCA | 60 |
| R | GGGTAGCGATCGAGTGTCCA | |||
| 10 | Collagen-1 | F | ATGCCGCGACCTCAAGATG | 60 |
| R | TGAGGCACAGACGGCTGAGTA | |||