| Literature DB >> 35602557 |
Zi-Jie Rong1,2, Hong-Hua Cai1,2, Hao Wang1,2, Gui-Hua Liu1,2, Zhi-Wen Zhang2,3, Min Chen1,2, Yu-Liang Huang2,3.
Abstract
Background: Spinal cord injury (SCI) damages the autonomic nervous system and affects the homeostasis of gut microbiota. Ursolic acid (UA) is a candidate drug for treating nervous system injury due to its neuroprotective and antioxidant functions. The purpose of our study was to investigate the role of UA on SCI and its mechanism.Entities:
Keywords: gut microbiota; inflammation; metabolic changes; spinal cord injury; ursolic acid
Year: 2022 PMID: 35602557 PMCID: PMC9115468 DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2022.872935
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5102 Impact factor: 5.505
Figure 1UA improved the motor function of SCI mice. (A) The bodyweight of mice at different times. (B) The weight of mice soleus. (C) BMS score was applied to monitor the motor function recovery. Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation; each experiment was repeated at least three times; n = 3; differences among multiple groups were evaluated by one-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey multiple comparisons post-test. *P < 0.05 vs. the sham group; #P < 0.05 vs. the SCI+CO group.
Figure 2UA inhibited inflammation and promoted neuronal survival and synaptic regeneration. (A) WB was performed to detect the protein expression of IL-1β, NF-κB, and TNF-α. (B) The concentration of IL-1β, NF-κB, and TNF-α was measured by ELISA. (C) IHC was conducted to analyze the expression of NeuN, NF-200, and synapsin. (D) Immunofluorescence double staining for NeuN and synapsin. Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation; each experiment was repeated at least three times; n = 3; differences among multiple groups were evaluated by one-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey multiple comparisons posttest. *P < 0.05 vs. the sham group; #P < 0.05 vs. the SCI+CO group; Magnification = 400 times; Scale bar = 25 μm.
Figure 3UA improved gut microbiota diversity in SCI mice. (A) The cumulative read abundance of gut microbiota in mice. (B) Venn diagrams showed the number of gut microbes in different groups. (C) Alpha diversity was calculated. (D) Anosim was used to analyze the significance of differences between groups. The heat map showed the 20 species with the highest relative abundance at (E) phylum and (F) genus levels.
Figure 4UA improved the dominant gut microbiota of SCI mice. Boxplots were used to compare the 20 species with the highest relative abundance at (A) Phylum_Genus and (B) Species_Genus levels in each group. (C) LEfSE analysis was performed to seek the difference among groups.
Figure 5UA regulated gut metabolism in SCI mice. (A) PCA and (B) PLS-DA was performed for dimension reduction analysis of metabolites in mice. (C) The heatmap showed the top 100 metabolites.
Figure 6KEGG was used to analyze the gut metabolic function in mice. (A) The enrichment ratio of KEGG pathways. (B) Bubble diagram showed the p-value of these enrichments.
Figure 7Correlation analysis of differential metabolites with the top 20 gut species. Each block represents a correlation, and the color of the block represents the strength of the correlation. A high absolute value of R-value indicates a strong correlation. *P < 0.05. **P < 0.01. ***P < 0.001.
Figure 8Correlation analysis of inflammatory factors with (A) the top 20 gut species and (B) differential metabolites. Each block represents a correlation, and the color of the block represents the strength of the correlation. A high absolute value of R value indicates a strong correlation. *P < 0.05. **P < 0.01. ***P < 0.001.