| Literature DB >> 35559233 |
Yingying Liu1, Yingying Tan1, Jiaqi Huang1, Chao Wu1, Xiaotian Fan1, Antony Stalin2, Shan Lu1, Haojia Wang1, Jingyuan Zhang1, Fanqin Zhang1, Zhishan Wu1, Bing Li3, Zhihong Huang1, Meilin Chen1, Guoliang Cheng3, Yanfang Mou3, Jiarui Wu1.
Abstract
Background: The incidence of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver (NAFL) is increasing year by year, growing evidence suggests that the intestinal flora plays a causative role in NAFL. Huazhi Rougan Granule (HRG) is commonly used in the clinical treatment of NAFL. It is reported that it can reduce lipids and protect the liver, but no research has confirmed whether the drug's effect is related to the intestinal flora. Therefore, we investigated whether the effect of HRG is related to the regulation of intestinal flora to further explore the mechanism of HRG in the treatment of NAFL through intestinal flora.Entities:
Keywords: 16s sequencing; high-fat diet; intestinal flora disorder; network pharmacology; nonalcoholic simple fatty liver
Year: 2022 PMID: 35559233 PMCID: PMC9086680 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.875700
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.988
FIGURE 1Effects of HRG on liver morphology, liver histopathology (HE staining, ×20) and fatty lesions in mice (oil red O staining, ×20).
Comparison of serum biochemical indexes of mice in each group after 5 weeks of gavage (‾x±se, n = 9).
| Group | HDLC (mmol/L) | LDLC (mmol/L) | TG (mmol/L) | TC (mmol/L) | AST (U/L) | ALT (U/L) | AKP(King unit/100 ml) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BC | 4.48 ± 0.15* | 0.71 ± 0.07**** | 1.41 ± 0.06 | 4.69 ± 0.21*** | 35.31 ± 5.27 | 24.11 ± 3.40 | 11.55 ± 0.39* |
| MC | 5.22 ± 0.13 | 1.19 ± 0.11 | 1.62 ± 0.15 | 6.87 ± 0.35 | 50.25 ± 5.15 | 34.61 ± 4.08 | 13.56 ± 0.53# |
| TL | 2.13 ± 0.17**,## | 0.84 ± 0.08** | 1.10 ± 0.05*,##,▲ | 6.17 ± 0.45## | 32.38 ± 3.91 | 17.57 ± 1.06* | 11.96 ± 0.70▲ |
| TM | 2.20 ± 0.23**,## | 0.96 ± 0.07#,▲ | 1.34 ± 0.12 | 6.40 ± 0.57## | 34.35 ± 2.19▲ | 15.39 ± 2.43* | 7.80 ± 0.65***,###,▲ |
| TH | 2.10 ± 0.15**,## | 0.95 ± 0.11▲ | 1.02 ± 0.05##,*,▲ | 6.24 ± 0.50## | 31.02 ± 4.48 | 18.25 ± 3.07 | 8.03 ± 0.87***,###,▲ |
| PC | 2.43 ± 0.08**,## | 0.66 ± 0.06** | 1.34 ± 0.10 | 6.23 ± 0.39## | 22.67 ± 1.99** | 15.58 ± 1.49* | 9.97 ± 0.34*** |
Compared with the model group, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Compared with the blank group, #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001.
Compared with the PC, group, ▲p < 0.05, ▲▲p < 0.01, ▲▲▲p < 0.001.
FIGURE 2Effect of HRG on biochemical indexes and statistical histogram of organ index in mice. (A) Effects of HRG on serum AKP level in mice. (B) Effects of HRG on serum ALT level in mice. (C) Effects of HRG on serum AST level in mice. (D) Effects of HRG on serum HDL-C level in mice. (E) Effects of HRG on serum LDL-C level in mice. (F) Effects of HRG on serum TC level in mice. (G) Effects of HRG on serum TG level in mice. (H) Effects of HRG on liver index in mice. Compared with the model group, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; compared with the blank group, #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001).
FIGURE 3The results of microbial diversity analysis. (Ⅰ: Histogram of species distribution. Ⅱ: Dilution curve and Shannon curve. Ⅲ: Beta analysis based on OTU. Ⅳ: LEfSe analysis. Ⅴ: RDA analysis.)
Alpha diversity statistics (‾x±se, n = 9).
| Group | BC | MC | PC | TH | TL | TM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shannon index | 5.5847 ± 0.1425 | 5.4356 ± 0.2673 | 5.3317 ± 0.2126 | 5.4967 ± 0.2489 | 5.4752 ± 0.187 | 6.0296 ± 0.2885▲ |
| Simpson index | 0.9445 ± 0.0089 | 0.9311 ± 0.0208 | 0.9228 ± 0.0157 | 0.9346 ± 0.0158 | 0.9412 ± 0.0115 | 0.9509 ± 0.0147 |
| ACE index | 464.1403 ± 7.6454 | 452.5716 ± 6.7194 | 457.6025 ± 5.263 | 472.0735 ± 9.1531 | 492.6638 ± 7.061**,#,▲▲ | 496.8799 ± 9.3045***,##,▲▲ |
| Chao1 index | 472.0195 ± 10.5494 | 457.5262 ± 8.1369 | 464.9995 ± 5.4769 | 477.7676 ± 9.7134 | 492.5886 ± 7.293**,▲ | 505.3993 ± 9.6354***,##,▲▲ |
| PD whole tree index | 25.1176 ± 0.3986 | 24.8614 ± 0.3622 | 25.3351 ± 0.2404 | 26.193 ± 0.4081*,# | 26.721 ± 0.3868**,##,▲▲ | 26.9273 ± 0.2881***,##,▲▲ |
| OTU | 414.56 ± 8.056 | 402.89 ± 9.137 | 420.11 ± 5.397 | 434.44 ± 11.973* | 446.22 ± 7.240**,#,▲ | 457.11 ± 8.389***,##,▲▲ |
| Coverage (%) | 99.8878 ± 0.0128 | 99.9056 ± 0.0112 | 99.9167 ± 0.0058# | 99.9167 ± 0.0071# | 99.9078 ± 0.0040 | 99.9111 ± 0.0102 |
Compared with the model group, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Compared with the blank group, #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001.
Compared with the PC, group, ▲p < 0.05, ▲▲p < 0.01, ▲▲▲p < 0.001.
FIGURE 4Network construction and correlation analysis. [(A) Herb-compound-target network of HRG. (B) PPI network related to NAFL. (C) PPI network related to IFD. (D) PPI network of HRG-IFD-NAFL merge targets. (E) Module 1. (F) Module 2. (G) Hub gene. (H) Herb-key compound-potential target-pathway network. (I) Illustration of crucial putative biological progress caused by key targets].
Compound information in the top 20 nodes in the “herb-compound-target” network of HRG.
| Number | Compound | TCMSP ID | Pubchem ID | Degree | OB(%) | DL | Herb source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HRG65 | Quercetin | MOL000098 | 5280343 | 238 | 46.43 | 0.28 | YC, SZ, NZZ, MHL, GQZ, CH, XJ, GC |
| HRG185 | Kaempferol | MOL000422 | 5280863 | 158 | 41.88 | 0.24 | DH, NZZ, CH, GC |
| HRG107 | Luteolin | MOL000006 | 5280445 | 150 | 36.16 | 0.25 | MHL, NZZ |
| HRG3 | 7-Methoxy-2-methyl isoflavone | MOL003896 | 354368 | 144 | 42.56 | 0.2 | GC |
| HRG76 | wogonin | MOL000173 | 5281703 | 142 | 30.68 | 0.23 | CZ |
| HRG53 | Glabridin | MOL004908 | 124052 | 138 | 53.25 | 0.47 | GC |
| HRG81 | 7-Acetoxy-2-methylisoflavone | MOL004991 | 268208 | 136 | 38.92 | 0.26 | GC |
| HRG189 | licochalcone a | MOL000497 | 5318998 | 135 | 40.79 | 0.29 | GC |
| HRG88 | Glyasperins M | MOL005007 | NA | 134 | 72.67 | 0.59 | GC |
| HRG74 | 4′-O-Methylglabridin | MOL004978 | 9927807 | 134 | 36.21 | 0.52 | GC |
| HRG70 | 1-Methoxyphaseollidin | MOL004959 | 480873 | 134 | 69.98 | 0.64 | GC |
| HRG86 | Licoagrocarpin | MOL005003 | 15840593 | 133 | 58.81 | 0.58 | GC |
| HRG239 | Medicarpin | MOL002565 | 336327 | 133 | 49.22 | 0.34 | GC |
| HRG179 | isorhamnetin | MOL000354 | 5281654 | 133 | 49.6 | 0.31 | YC, CH, GC |
Information of molecular docking.
| Structure | PDB ID | Target | Compound ID | Compound name | Affinity (kcal/mol) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1O80 | CXCL10 | HRG65 | Quercetin | −6.5 |
|
| 3IL8 | CXCL8 | HRG65 | Quercetin | −6.8 |
|
| 1P53 | ICAM1 | HRG107 | Luteolin | −7.3 |
| 1P53 | ICAM1 | HRG185 | Kaempferol | −7 | |
| 1P53 | ICAM1 | HRG65 | Quercetin | −7.3 | |
|
| 1FYH | IFNG | HRG107 | Luteolin | −8.1 |
| 1FYH | IFNG | HRG65 | Quercetin | −8 | |
|
| 2H24 | IL10 | HRG107 | Luteolin | −6.6 |
| 2H24 | IL10 | HRG65 | Quercetin | −6.5 | |
|
| 5R86 | IL1B | HRG65 | Quercetin | −6.8 |
|
| 4NEM | IL2 | HRG107 | Luteolin | −7 |
| 4NEM | IL2 | HRG65 | Quercetin | −6.8 | |
|
| 5FHX | IL4 | HRG107 | Luteolin | −7.9 |
|
| 5FUC | IL6 | HRG107 | Luteolin | −8.9 |
| 5FUC | IL6 | HRG65 | Quercetin | −9 | |
|
| 7KPA | TNF | HRG107 | Luteolin | −8.3 |
| 7KPA | TNF | HRG185 | Kaempferol | −9.5 | |
| 7KPA | TNF | HRG65 | Quercetin | −10 |
FIGURE 5Molecular docking simulation.
FIGURE 6The results of metagenomics sequencing. (Ⅰ: Functional annotation analysis. Ⅱ: Histogram of KEGG pathway composition and abundance. Ⅲ: Heat map of metagenomeSeq differential pathway abundance).