| Literature DB >> 35694271 |
Mengmeng Cai1,2,3, Ya Xiao1,2, Zhibing Lin4, Jinmiao Lu3,5, Xiaoyu Wang4, Sajid Ur Rahman3,6, Shilan Zhu3,5, Xiaoyu Chen3,5, Jialin Gu1,2, Yuzhu Ma1,2, Zhaoguo Chen3, Jiege Huo1,2.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between gut microbiota (GM) and serum metabolism using antineoplastic Fufangchangtai (FFCT) as the model prescription in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).Entities:
Keywords: Fufangchangtai; colorectal cancer; gut microbiota; serum metabolome; traditional Chinese medicine
Year: 2022 PMID: 35694271 PMCID: PMC9178095 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.889181
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.988
FIGURE 1Tumor volume and percentage of lymphocytes among the CT26 group and FFCT-treated groups. (A) Tumor volume among the CT26 group and FFCT-treated groups (p > 0.05). Percentage of CD3+CD4+ (B) and CD3+CD8+ T cells (C) in the blood, spleen, and tumor tissue of the CT26 tumor-bearing mice treated with FFCT. * represents p < 0.05.
FIGURE 2GM differences between the CT26 group and the PBS group. (A) Diversity index analysis (Chao1, Good’s coverage, Shannon, Simpson, and Observed species) between the CT26 group and the PBS group. (B) Differences in unweighted UniFrac distance between the CT26 group and the PBS group. (C) Differences in weighted UniFrac distance between the CT26 group and the PBS group. (D) Total gut bacterial relative abundance at the taxonomic rank of phylum. (E) Heat map of species composition of the gut microbiota in the CT26 group and the PBS group at the genus level. * represents p < 0.05.
FIGURE 3Mass spectrum of serum metabolism in the CT26H and CM groups. (A) Metabolites Intensity Distribution box plot of all samples. (B) OPLS-DA score plot of the CT26H and CM groups. (C) Heat map of the top 50 differential metabolites between the CT26H and CM groups. (D) KEGG pathways enriched by significantly different metabolites between the CT26H and CM groups (p < 0.05).
FIGURE 4Mass spectrum of serum metabolism in FMT mice. (A) OPLS-DA score plot of the FMT-CA-FFCT and FMT-H-FFCT groups. (B) Heat map of the top 50 different metabolites between the FMT-CA-FFCT and FMT-H-FFCT groups (p < 0.05).
FIGURE 5GM differences between the CT26 group and the FFCT-treated groups. (A) Diversity index analysis (Chao1, Good’s coverage, Shannon, Simpson, and Observed species) between the CT26 group and the FFCT-treated groups. (B) Differences in unweighted UniFrac distance between the CT26 group and the FFCT-treated groups. (C) Differences in weighted UniFrac distance between the CT26 group and the FFCT-treated groups. (D) Total gut bacterial relative abundance at the taxonomic rank of phylum. (E) Heat map of species composition of the gut microbiota in the CT26 group and the FFCT-treated groups at the genus level. * represents p < 0.05.