| Literature DB >> 35360657 |
Zhenhai Sun1,2, Yunsheng Xu2, Wenrong An1,2, Siling Bi1,2, Sai Xu1,2, Rui Zhang1,2, Mingyang Cong1,2, Shouqiang Chen2.
Abstract
Although data mining methods are extensively used in the rule analysis of famous old traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) experts' prescriptions for the treatment of hypertension, most of them only mine the association between herbs and herbs, ignoring the importance of symptoms in the disease. This study collected 439 cases of hypertension treated by famous old TCM experts from the FangNet platform. Using the structure network algorithm, the symptom-herb network was constructed, which redefined the importance of herb in disease. Based on the network, 21 driver herbs, 76 herb pairs, and 41 symptom-herb associations were mined. Finally, the basic prescription composed of Gouteng (Uncariae Ramulus cum Uncis), Huanglian (Coptidis Rhizoma), Chuanxiong (Chuanxiong Rhizoma), Gegen (Puerariae Lobatae Radix), Danggui (Angelicae Sinensis Radix), and Huangqin (Scutellariae Radix) was found. These herbs are the most significant among all herbs, and they have a potential correlation with each other. To further verify the rationality of the data mining results, we adopted the network pharmacology method. Network pharmacological analysis shows that the five core targets in the basic prescription include IL6, VEGFA, TNF, TP53, and EGF, which link 10 significant active compounds and 7 important KEGG pathways. It was predicted that anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, vascular endothelial protection, emotion regulation, and ion channel intervention might be the main mechanisms of the basic prescription against hypertension. This study reveals the prescription rule of famous old TCM experts for treating hypertension from a new perspective, which provides a new approach to inherit the academic experience of famous old TCM experts and develop new drugs.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35360657 PMCID: PMC8964163 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5850899
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1The workflow of this paper.
Figure 2Driver/passenger herb classification. Orange represents driver herbs. Green represents passenger herbs. The edges in the network represent the interactions between herbs.
Figure 3Rank of importance of driver herbs. Orange circle represents driver herbs. The circle size represents THScore.
Rank of importance of driver herbs.
| Herb | THScore | Support | Dosage_SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gouteng | 17.60 | 0.79 | 6.85 |
| Huanglian | 15.67 | 0.67 | 1.42 |
| Chuanxiong | 14.87 | 0.72 | 2.44 |
| Gegen | 14.47 | 0.70 | 2.04 |
| Danggui | 14.46 | 0.69 | 1.32 |
| Huangqin | 12.97 | 0.51 | 0.40 |
| Zexie | 12.62 | 0.54 | 4.75 |
| Gancao | 11.66 | 0.54 | 4.77 |
| Danshen | 10.93 | 0.46 | 6.95 |
| Mudanpi | 10.78 | 0.40 | 6.30 |
| Suanzaoren | 10.05 | 0.41 | 5.50 |
| Yanhusuo | 9.87 | 0.49 | 4.42 |
| Sanqi | 8.85 | 0.44 | 1.40 |
| Bingpian | 8.54 | 0.35 | 0.00 |
| Huangqi | 8.22 | 0.40 | 9.42 |
| Fuling | 7.52 | 0.23 | 7.41 |
| Zhizi | 7.29 | 0.28 | 0.53 |
| Maidong | 6.41 | 0.33 | 6.73 |
| Muxiang | 6.36 | 0.15 | 0.00 |
| Wuweizi | 6.22 | 0.29 | 1.93 |
| Shuizhi | 5.93 | 0.21 | 4.38 |
THScore represents network topology hub scores calculated using the PageRank algorithm. Support represents the occurrence frequency of herbs. Dosage_SD represents the standard deviation of different doses of the same herb.
The Latin names, medicinal parts, and efficacy classifications of driver herbs.
| Pinyin | Latin name | Parts used | Herb category |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gouteng | Uncariae Ramulus cum Uncis | Stem branch | Liver-pacifying and wind-extinguishing |
| Huanglian | Coptidis Rhizoma | Rhizome | Heat-clearing |
| Chuanxiong | Chuanxiong Rhizoma | Rhizome | Blooding-activating and stasis-resolving |
| Gegen | Puerariae Lobatae Radix | Root | Exterior-releasing |
| Danggui | Angelicae Sinensis Radix | Root | Tonifying |
| Huangqin | Scutellariae Radix | Root | Heat-clearing |
| Zexie | Alismatis Rhizoma | Tuber | Dampness-draining diuretic |
| Gancao | Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma | Root and rhizome | Tonifying |
| Danshen | Salviae Miltiorrhizae Radix et Rhizoma | Root and rhizome | Blooding-activating and stasis-resolving |
| Mudanpi | Moutan Cortex | Root bark | Heat-clearing |
| Suanzaoren | Ziziphi Spinosae Semen | Fruit | Tranquilizing |
| Yanhusuo | Corydalis Rhizoma | Tuber | Blooding-activating and stasis-resolving |
| Sanqi | Notoginseng Radix et Rhizoma | Root and rhizome | Stasis-resolving hemostatic |
| Bingpian | Borneolum Syntheticum | Resin processed products | Resuscitation |
| Huangqi | Astragali radix | Root | Tonifying |
| Fuling | Poria | Sclerotium | Dampness-draining diuretic |
| Zhizi | Gardeniae Fructus | Fruit | Heat-clearing |
| Maidong | Ophiopogonis Radix | Root | Tonifying |
| Muxiang | Aucklandiae Radix | Root | Qi-regulating |
| Wuweizi | Schisandrae Chinensis Fructus | Fruit | Astringent |
| Shuizhi | Hirudo | Whole | Blooding-activating and stasis-resolving |
Figure 4Co-occurrence and exclusivity of herbal pairs.
The herb pairs with high co-occurrence level and high mutual exclusivity level.
| Herb1 | Herb2 |
| Co_ratio | Co_event | Ex_event | Total_event | Co_level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huanglian | Gouteng | 0.001 | 0.75 | 274 | 91 | 365 | 4 |
| Sanqi | Yanhusuo | 0.001 | 0.72 | 173 | 66 | 239 | 4 |
| Huanglian | Huangqin | 0.001 | 0.72 | 215 | 84 | 299 | 4 |
| Chuanxiong | Gegen | 0.001 | 0.7 | 257 | 109 | 366 | 4 |
| Gouteng | Gegen | 0.001 | 0.7 | 269 | 118 | 387 | 4 |
| Wuweizi | Maidong | 0.001 | 0.67 | 109 | 53 | 162 | 4 |
| Gouteng | Danggui | 0.001 | 0.66 | 259 | 133 | 392 | 4 |
| Danggui | Chuanxiong | 0.001 | 0.63 | 240 | 138 | 378 | 4 |
| Huangqi | Maidong | 0.001 | 0.63 | 125 | 72 | 197 | 4 |
| Gouteng | Huangqin | 0.001 | 0.63 | 219 | 131 | 350 | 4 |
| Sharen | Heshouwu | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 120 | 120 | −4 |
| Rougui | Guizhi | 0.008 | 0 | 0 | 93 | 93 | −4 |
| Qinghao | Shuizhi | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 143 | 143 | −4 |
| Nuzhenzi | Qinghao | 0.009 | 0 | 0 | 91 | 91 | −4 |
| Niuxi | Guizhi | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 110 | 110 | −4 |
| Juhua | Yanhusuo | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 242 | 242 | −4 |
| Juhua | Sanqi | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 220 | 220 | −4 |
| Juhua | Bingpian | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 177 | 177 | −4 |
| Juhua | Shuizhi | 0.004 | 0 | 0 | 118 | 118 | −4 |
P values were calculated by Fisher's test. Co_event represents the sum of the number of times two herbs appeared together in the same prescription. Ex_event represents the number of times either of the two herbs appeared in the prescription. Total_Event represents the sum of Co_event and Ex_event. Co_ratio represents Co_event/Total_event. Co_level represents the level of co-occurrence and mutual exclusion.
Figure 541 high confidence symptom-herb associations. Green represents herbs. Orange represents symptoms. The size of the circle represents herb or symptom support. Edges represent the correlation between herbs and symptoms.
41 significant associations between symptoms and herbs.
| Symptom | Herb | Association | Symptom_support | Herb_support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edema of lower extremities | Zexie | 0.89 | 0.1 | 0.54 |
| Fuling | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.23 | |
| Danshen | 0.68 | 0.1 | 0.46 | |
|
| ||||
| Chest pain | Yanhusuo | 0.86 | 0.28 | 0.49 |
| Sanqi | 0.72 | 0.28 | 0.44 | |
| Bingpian | 0.67 | 0.28 | 0.35 | |
| Gancao | 0.64 | 0.28 | 0.54 | |
|
| ||||
| Loose stool | Zexie | 0.8 | 0.06 | 0.54 |
| Gancao | 0.68 | 0.06 | 0.54 | |
| Huangqin | 0.68 | 0.06 | 0.51 | |
|
| ||||
| Hyperlipidemia | Juemingzi | 0.79 | 0.09 | 0.13 |
| Mudanpi | 0.63 | 0.09 | 0.4 | |
|
| ||||
| Profuse dreaming | Suanzaoren | 0.72 | 0.08 | 0.41 |
| Huangqin | 0.67 | 0.08 | 0.51 | |
| Zexie | 0.61 | 0.08 | 0.54 | |
|
| ||||
| Cough | Danshen | 0.71 | 0.06 | 0.46 |
| Gancao | 0.68 | 0.06 | 0.54 | |
| Zexie | 0.61 | 0.06 | 0.54 | |
| Yanhusuo | 0.61 | 0.06 | 0.49 | |
|
| ||||
| Dry mouth | Zexie | 0.7 | 0.14 | 0.54 |
| Huangqin | 0.69 | 0.14 | 0.51 | |
|
| ||||
| Back pain | Gancao | 0.69 | 0.11 | 0.54 |
| Yanhusuo | 0.65 | 0.11 | 0.49 | |
|
| ||||
| Poor appetite | Gancao | 0.68 | 0.1 | 0.54 |
| Suanzaoren | 0.61 | 0.1 | 0.41 | |
|
| ||||
| Shortness of breath | Yanhusuo | 0.66 | 0.13 | 0.49 |
| Zexie | 0.64 | 0.13 | 0.54 | |
| Gancao | 0.64 | 0.13 | 0.54 | |
|
| ||||
| Irascibility | Gancao | 0.63 | 0.06 | 0.54 |
| Zexie | 0.63 | 0.06 | 0.54 | |
| Huangqin | 0.63 | 0.06 | 0.51 | |
|
| ||||
| Dry stool | Gancao | 0.65 | 0.1 | 0.54 |
| Suanzaoren | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.41 | |
|
| ||||
| Headache | Huangqin | 0.63 | 0.21 | 0.51 |
| Zexie | 0.6 | 0.21 | 0.54 | |
|
| ||||
| Insomnia | Suanzaoren | 0.68 | 0.39 | 0.41 |
| Oppression in the chest | Yanhusuo | 0.65 | 0.45 | 0.49 |
| Sensation of pressure in the head | Gancao | 0.65 | 0.12 | 0.54 |
| Tinnitus | Gancao | 0.64 | 0.06 | 0.54 |
| Dizziness | Zexie | 0.61 | 0.57 | 0.54 |
| Flusteredness | Gancao | 0.61 | 0.32 | 0.54 |
Figure 6Common targets for herbs and diseases.
Figure 7Herb-compound-target-disease network. Blue represents herbs, purple represents compounds, green represents targets, and orange represents hypertension.
The top 10 active compounds.
| Mol Id | Molecule name | Degree | Betweenness centrality | Closeness centrality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOL000358 | Beta-sitosterol | 208 | 0.048 | 0.449 |
| MOL000098 | Quercetin | 176 | 0.145 | 0.512 |
| MOL000449 | Stigmasterol | 90 | 0.042 | 0.433 |
| MOL000422 | Kaempferol | 56 | 0.039 | 0.444 |
| MOL002903 | (R)-canadine | 49 | 0.019 | 0.435 |
| MOL002897 | Epiberberine | 46 | 0.004 | 0.404 |
| MOL008488 | Yohimbine | 45 | 0.014 | 0.426 |
| MOL008489 | Hirsuteine | 43 | 0.010 | 0.423 |
| MOL001458 | Coptisine | 42 | 0.003 | 0.402 |
| MOL008465 | Hirsutine | 42 | 0.017 | 0.421 |
Figure 8PPI network.
Figure 921 core targets.
Figure 10GO pathway analysis (the top 10).
Figure 11KEGG pathway analysis (the top 15).
MCODE network topology analysis results.
| Cluster | Score | Nodes | Edges | Targets |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 26.258 | 32 | 407 | ESR1, TNF, PTPN1, PTGS2, MAPK1, MMP2, MAPK14, CYCS, IL6, VCAM1, PLAU, NOS3, GJA1, SELE, IFNG, MMP3, EGF, EGFR, HMOX1, CCL2, PPARG, IL2, MAPK8, JUN, NOS2, MMP1, MPO, TP53, IL1B, KDR, SOD1, VEGFA |
| 2 | 10.286 | 15 | 72 | SLC6A2, ADRA2A, ADRA2C, OPRM1, OPRD1, OPRK1, CHRM2, PTGER3, CYP3A4, DRD3, DRD2, F2, ACHE, DRD4, SLC6A4 |
| 3 | 8 | 12 | 44 | SLC6A3, CHRM3, HTR2C, CHRM1, ADRA1D, ADRA1A, HTR7, ADRA1B, ADRB1, MAOA, HTR2A, MAOB |
| 4 | 4 | 5 | 8 | AHR, NR3C1, GSK3B, PGR, AR |
| 5 | 4 | 4 | 6 | CDK1, CCNA2, RB1, CDK2 |
| 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | DRD1, DRD5, HTR3A |
| 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | GABRA6, GABRA5, GABRA1 |
Figure 12Module analysis of PPI network.
Figure 13Binding energy of medicines and disease targets.
Figure 14Molecular docking mode.