| Literature DB >> 35451570 |
Yuxiao Meng1, Xiaojun Li1, Xiaoting Wang1, Lu Zhang1, Jiaqi Guan1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to reveal the mechanism of functional constipation in the treatment of Atractylodes macrocephala Koidz. (AMK) and Paeonia lactiflora Pall. (PLP).Entities:
Keywords: coupling of AMK and PLP; functional constipation; mechanism; network pharmacology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35451570 PMCID: PMC9043712 DOI: 10.1002/ame2.12226
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animal Model Exp Med ISSN: 2576-2095
Prediction of possible pharmacodynamic components of AMK and PLP
| Medicinal herbs | TCMSP MOL ID | Active ingredient | OB (%) | DL (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMK | MOL000045 | Atractylenolide III | 68.11 | 0.17 |
| MOL000022 | 14‐Acetyl‐12‐senecioyl‐2E,8Z,10E‐atractylentriol | 63.37 | 0.3 | |
| MOL000020 | 12‐Senecioyl‐2E,8E,10E‐atractylentriol | 62.4 | 0.22 | |
| MOL000021 | 14‐Acetyl‐12‐senecioyl‐2E,8E,10E‐atractylentriol | 60.31 | 0.31 | |
| MOL000049 | 3β‐Acetoxyatractylone | 54.07 | 0.22 | |
| MOL000066 | Alloaromadedrene | 53.46 | 0.1 | |
| MOL000025 | α‐Longipinene | 53.26 | 0.12 | |
| MOL000057 | DIBP | 49.63 | 0.13 | |
| MOL000044 | Atractylenolide II | 47.5 | 0.15 | |
| MOL000046 | Atractylone | 41.1 | 0.13 | |
| MOL000028 | α‐Amyrin | 39.51 | 0.76 | |
| MOL000043 | Atractylenolide I | 37.37 | 0.15 | |
| MOL000033 | (3S,8S,9S,10R,13R,14S,17R)‐10,13‐Dimethyl‐17‐[(2R,5S)‐5‐propan‐2‐yloctan‐2‐yl]‐2,3,4,7,8,9,11,12,14,15,16,17‐Dodecahydro‐1H‐cyclopenta[a]phenanthren‐3‐ol | 36.23 | 0.78 | |
| MOL000072 | 8β‐Ethoxy atractylenolide III | 35.95 | 0.21 | |
| PLP | MOL001918 | Paeoniflorgenone | 87.59 | 0.37 |
| MOL001925 | Paeoniflorin_qt | 68.18 | 0.4 | |
| MOL001928 | Albiflorin_qt | 66.64 | 0.33 | |
| MOL001910 | 11alpha,12alpha‐Epoxy‐3beta‐23‐dihydroxy‐30‐norolean‐20‐en‐28,12beta‐olide | 64.77 | 0.38 | |
| MOL000676 | DBP | 64.54 | 0.13 | |
| MOL000612 | (−)‐alpha‐Cedrene | 55.56 | 0.1 | |
| MOL000211 | Mairin | 55.38 | 0.78 | |
| MOL000492 | (+)‐Catechin | 54.83 | 0.24 | |
| MOL001924 | Paeoniflorin | 53.87 | 0.79 | |
| MOL001921 | Lactiflorin | 49.12 | 0.8 | |
| MOL001919 | (3S,5R,8R,9R,10S,14S)‐3,17‐Dihydroxy‐4,4,8,10,14‐Pentamethyl‐2,3,5,6,7,9‐hexahydro‐1H‐cyclopenta[a]phenanthrene‐15,16‐dione | 43.56 | 0.53 | |
| MOL001889 | Methyl linolelaidate | 41.93 | 0.17 | |
| MOL000422 | Kaempferol | 41.88 | 0.24 | |
| MOL000358 | Beta‐Sitosterol | 36.91 | 0.75 | |
| MOL000359 | Sitosterol | 36.91 | 0.75 | |
| MOL001930 | Benzoyl paeoniflorin | 31.27 | 0.75 |
FIGURE 1Venn diagram of the effect of AMK and PLP combined with functional constipation
FIGURE 2Visualization of the Chinese herbal compound ingredient‐target network
FIGURE 3The interaction of related target proteins of AMK and PLP combined with the disease
FIGURE 4GO and KEGG enrichment analysis
FIGURE 5Metascape gene list analysis
The binding energy of top 8 compounds and top 6 genes
| Docking score (kcal/mol) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F2 | HTR2A | CHRM1 | ADRA1A | CHRM3 | IL6 | |
| AMK | ||||||
| MOL000045 | −7.52 | −6.37 | −7.27 | −6.62 | −6.39 | −7.01 |
| MOL000022 | −6.2 | −4.74 | −5.79 | −4.9 | −4.14 | −4.36 |
| MOL000020 | −7.71 | −4.51 | −5.09 | −4.75 | −4.9 | −4.81 |
| MOL000021 | −5.25 | −3.41 | −4.53 | −4.85 | −4.82 | −5.51 |
| PLP | ||||||
| MOL001918 | −8.39 | −5.58 | −6.36 | −5.59 | −6.68 | −6.1 |
| MOL001925 | −7.73 | −5.05 | −6.07 | −5.99 | −6.42 | −5.91 |
| MOL001928 | −7.7 | −4.77 | −6.63 | −5.4 | −5.92 | −5.96 |
| MOL001910 | −9.86 | −7.17 | −9.75 | −6.98 | −8.76 | −8.02 |
FIGURE 6Visualization results of the top 3
FIGURE 7Effect on stool in each group
FIGURE 8Effect on the level of AC, cAMP, and PKA in serum. Compared with the normal group, # p < 0.05; compared with the model group, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; compared with the mosapride group, △ p < 0.05
FIGURE 9Effect on the level of AC, cAMP, and PKA in intestinal tissue. Compared with the normal group, # p < 0.05; compared with the model group, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; compared with the mosapride group, △ p < 0.05, △△ p < 0.01
Comparison of the average optical density value of AQP1, AQP3, and AQP9 expression in each group of rats by immunohistochemistry
| Group | Number of cases | AQP1 | AQP3 | AQP9 | Compared with normal group ( | Compared with model group ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal (A) | 10 | 0.145 ± 0.017 | 0.135 ± 0.017 | 0.127 ± 0.011 | / | / |
| Model (B) | 10 | 0.332 ± 0.028 | 0.322 ± 0.028 | 0.310 ± 0.050 | 0.00002 | / |
| Low‐dose AMK and PLP (C) | 10 | 0.163 ± 0.019 | 0.143 ± 0.019 | 0.135 ± 0.017 | 0.31274 | 0.00008 |
| Middle‐dose AMK and PLP (D) | 10 | 0.267 ± 0.027 | 0.231 ± 0.027 | 0.147 ± 0.056 | 0.09184 | 0.04222 |
| High‐dose AMK and PLP (E) | 10 | 0.172 ± 0.042 | 0.152 ± 0.042 | 0.238 ± 0.091 | 0.12300 | 0.00744 |
| Control (mosapride) (F) | 10 | 0.251 ± 0.019 | 0.247 ± 0.019 | 0.238 ± 0.091 | 0.00007 | 0.00052 |
FIGURE 10Expression of AQP1 in intestinal tissue. (A) Normal. (B) Model. (C) Low‐dose AMK and PLP. (D) Middle‐dose AMK and PLP. (E) High‐dose AMK and PLP. (F) Control (mosapride)
FIGURE 11Expression of AQP3 in intestinal tissue. (A) Normal. (B) Model. (C) Low‐dose AMK and PLP. (D) Middle‐dose AMK and PLP. (E) High‐dose AMK and PLP. (F) Control (mosapride)
FIGURE 12Expression of AQP9 in intestinal tissue. (A) Normal. (B) Model. (C) Low‐dose AMK and PLP. (D) Middle‐dose AMK and PLP. (E) High‐dose AMK and PLP. (F) Control (mosapride)