| Literature DB >> 34926462 |
Cui Guo1,2, Xiaoqiang Liu1,3, Yimin Xu1, Xinyue Han1, Runnan Xie1,4, Xiangxue Meng1,2, Yuan Li1, Tongyu Chen5, Zhihong Cheng6, Xiaoling Fu1.
Abstract
Background: Canmei formula (CMF) is a traditional Chinese medicine compound with definite effect on the prevention and treatment of colorectal adenoma (CRA). CMF can prevent the transformation of intestinal inflammation to cancer. This study explored the mechanism of action of CMF in anti-CRA using multi-omics techniques. Method: The mice were randomly divided into four groups: blank group (Control), high-fat diet (HFD) + AOM/DSS colorectal adenoma model (ADH) groups, Canmei formula treatment group (ADH-CMF) and sulfasalazine treatment group (Sul). Except for the blank group, ADH model was established in the other three groups by intraperitoneal injection with AOM reagent, and then mice were given 2.5% DSS in free drinking water and high-fat diet. The mice in the blank group and ADH groups were intragastrically perfused with normal saline, and the mice in the other two groups were treated with corresponding drugs for 20 weeks. During this period, the changes of physical signs of mice in each group were observed. The differentially expressed genes and proteins in the Control group, ADH group and ADH-CMF group were detected by RNA-seq transcriptome sequencing and Tandem Mass Tags (TMT) quantitative proteomics. After the combined analysis and verification, the key targets were analyzed by gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG). Moreover, the changes of intestinal flora in mice of the three groups were examined.Entities:
Keywords: Canmei formula; LHPP; colorectal adenoma; intestinal flora; multi-omics
Year: 2021 PMID: 34926462 PMCID: PMC8672438 DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2021.778826
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol ISSN: 2296-634X
The number of adenomas in the range of 1 ∼ 3 mm and larger than 3 mm in the intestinal tract of mice.
| Group | Number of adenomas ( | Inhibition rating (%) (1~3 mm) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1~3 mm | >3 mm | ||
| Control | 0.00 | 0.00 | — |
| ADH | 5.18 ± 1.60*# | 1.95 ± 1.02*# | 0.00 |
| ADH-CMF | 2.75 ± 1.04* | 0.00* | 46.91 |
| Sul | 4.44 ± 1.94# | 0.00* | 14.29 |
*p < 0.05 vs. ADH; #p > 0.05 vs. ADH; *#p < 0.05 vs. control.
Adenoma size of colon (mm).
| Group | Adenoma size ( |
|---|---|
| Colon (mm) | |
| Control | 0.00 |
| ADH | 2.25 ± 1.9* |
| ADH-CMF | 1.22 ± 1.29# |
| Sul | 1.02 ± 0.85# |
*p < 0.05 vs. Control; #p > 0.05 vs. ADH.
FIGURE 1Effect of CMF on morphological changes of intestinal Adenoma in mice. (A) body weight of mice in Control group and ADH group; (B) Change of body weight of mice in each group. (C) Statistical analysis of colonic length in each group of mice; ****p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; (D) Results of HE staining in colonic tissues of each group.
FIGURE 2Number of differentially expressed genes and proteins. (A) mRNA volcanogram of differential expression (B) mRNA venn diagram of differential expression (C) proteins volcanogram of differential expression (D) proteins venn diagram of differential expression.
FIGURE 3Identification and analysis of proteins (A) Distribution of the identified proteins among different molecular-weight classes. (B) Distribution of proteins containing different numbers of identified peptides.
FIGURE 4Differential expression analysis (ADH_vs_ADH_CMF) The ordinate represents the expression multiple difference of the protein in a pair of comparison groups, the log2 (ratio of protein). The abscissa represents the expression of multiple difference of the corresponding transcript in the comparison group, the log2 (ratio of gene), logarithm difference takes the logarithmic value respectively; each point represents a protein and its associated transcript, the upper left corner of the picture rho represents the Pearson correlation coefficient between the two groups, p represents the correlation test p value; rho <0 indicates negative correlation. rho > 0 indicates positive correlation; rho = 0 indicates no correlation.
Differential targets obtained by cross-analysis of transcriptome and proteome.
| Number | Proteome | Transcriptome | Target | Up or down regulation | KEGG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ENSMUSP00000112770.2 | ENSMUSG00000084174 | Sycn | down | — |
| 2 | ENSMUSP00000078088.6 | ENSMUSG00000024411 | Aqp4 | down | Bile secretion, Vasopressin-regulated water reabsorption |
| 3 | ENSMUSP00000000642.4 | ENSMUSG00000000628 | Hk2 | down | HIF-1 signaling pathway, carbon metabolism |
| 4 | ENSMUSP00000122863.1 | ENSMUSG00000030116 | Mfap5 | down | — |
| 5 | ENSMUSP00000029367.5 | ENSMUSG00000027792 | Bche | Up | Tryptophan metabolism |
| 6 | ENSMUSP00000033241.5 | ENSMUSG00000030946 | Lhpp | Up | oxidative phosphorylation, PI3K-Akt signaling pathway |
| 7 | ENSMUSP00000066927.3 | ENSMUSG00000021944 | Gata4 | Up | cGMP-PKG signal pathway, cell senescence |
| 8 | ENSMUSP00000134082.1 | ENSMUSG00000035561 | Aldh1b1 | Up | glycolysis, fatty acid metabolism |
| 9 | ENSMUSP00000112472.1 | ENSMUSG00000032572 | Col6a4 | Up | PI3K-Akt signaling pathway |
FIGURE 5Enrichment analysis of GO (A) and KEGG (B) of differential genes after CMF intervention.
FIGURE 6Validation of the Transcriptome and proteome data in intestinal tissues (A) DEPs were selected and validated by PRM. Each data point is calculated from the average of biological triplicates. Results of the PRM analysis were consistent with TMT data. (B) Decreased expression of LHPP in colorectal cancer tissues when compared with normal tissues from the TCGA database (C) No significant difference in overall survival was observed between patients from the TCGA database with high LHPP expression. ****p < 0.0001 (D). Comparison of relative gene expression level of the selected differentially regulated proteins measured by qPCR. Each data point is calculated from the average of biological triplicates.
FIGURE 7Effects of CMF on the structure and diversity of intestinal microflora (A) Venn diagram of OTU distribution differences between groups; (B) Species accumulation curve; (C) Comparison box of Simpson index for diversity; (D) Comparison box of diversity Shannon index; (E) Box chart of diversity Chao index comparison; (F) Box plot of diversity ACE index comparison; Compared with Control mice, *p < 0.05.
FIGURE 8The differential analysis of intestinal flora at the genus level **p < 0.001; *p < 0.01.