| Literature DB >> 35697725 |
Xin Tan1, Wei Xian1, Xiaorong Li1, Yongfeng Chen1, Jiayi Geng2, Qiyi Wang3, Qin Gao3,4, Bi Tang1, Hongju Wang5,6, Pinfang Kang7,8.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common atrial arrhythmia for which there is no specific therapeutic drug. Quercetin (Que) has been used to treat cardiovascular diseases such as arrhythmias. In this study, we explored the mechanism of action of Que in AF using network pharmacology and molecular docking. The chemical structure of Que was obtained from Pubchem. TCMSP, Swiss Target Prediction, Drugbank, STITCH, Pharmmapper, CTD, GeneCards, DISGENET and TTD were used to obtain drug component targets and AF-related genes, and extract AF and normal tissue by GEO database differentially expressed genes by GEO database. The top targets were IL6, VEGFA, JUN, MMP9 and EGFR, and Que for AF treatment might involve the role of AGE-RAGE signaling pathway in diabetic complications, MAPK signaling pathway and IL-17 signaling pathway. Molecular docking showed that Que binds strongly to key targets and is differentially expressed in AF. In vivo results showed that Que significantly reduced the duration of AF fibrillation and improved atrial remodeling, reduced p-MAPK protein expression, and inhibited the progression of AF. Combining network pharmacology and molecular docking approaches with in vivo studies advance our understanding of the intensive mechanisms of Quercetin, and provide the targeted basis for clinical Atrial fibrillation treatment.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35697725 PMCID: PMC9192746 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-13911-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Graphical abstract.
Figure 2Protein–protein interaction (PPI) networks construction for target proteins of Que against AF. (a) The chemical structure of the quercetin. (b) GEO Volcano Map. Red upregulates the target, green downregulates the target; (c) GEO Difference Chart Differential. Gene expression in normal subjects (green) vs AF patients (purple). (d) Venn diagram of Que AF and GEO. (e) PPI network of Que against AF. The larger the circle and the darker the color, the stronger the correlation with the therapeutic target.
Key target information table of Que in the treatment of AF.
| Uniprot ID | Gene name | Protein name | Degree |
|---|---|---|---|
| P05231 | IL-6 | Interleukin-6 | 47 |
| P15692 | VEGFA | Vascular endothelial growth factor A | 45 |
| P05412 | JUN | Transcription factor AP-1 | 41 |
| P00533 | EGFR | Epidermal growth factor receptor | 38 |
| P14780 | MMP9 | Mitogen-activated protein kinase 1 | 38 |
| P24385 | CCND1 | G1/S-specific cyclin-D1 | 38 |
| P10145 | CXCL8 | Interleukin-8 | 38 |
| P35354 | PTGS2 | Prostaglandin G/H synthase 2 | 37 |
| P03372 | ESR1 | Estrogen receptor | 35 |
| P01106 | MYC | Myc proto-oncogene protein | 35 |
Figure 3Bioinformatics analysis of target proteins of Que against AF. (a) Panther classification categorized target proteins of Que against AF. The figures next to the pie chart indicate the percentage of protein in the given functional class. (b) GO, BP, CC and MF enrichment analysis of interselection targets. The intensity of the color represents the adjusted p value, and the bubble size corresponds to the number of genes. (c–e) The Molecular Complex Detection (MCODE) algorithm has been used to identify densely connected network components.
Figure 4KEGG pathway enrichment analysis. (a) KEGG enrichment analysis of interselection targets. The intensity of the color represents the adjusted P value. (b) Que target-major pathway-AF. The middle purple circle is the relevant pathway and the outer circle is the relevant target in the pathway. (c) MAPK detailed pathway map. The red area is the MAPK upregulation target of the key pathway of AF for Que treatment.
KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of Que against AF.
| Pathway | Enrichment | P value | Symbols | Count |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AGE-RAGE signaling pathway in diabetic complications | 29.23 | 7.01E − 22 | NOX4, VEGFA, CCND1, BAX, JUN, IL-6, PRKCA, STAT1, IL-1B, SELE, CSCL8, TGFB1, THBD, SERPINE, COLA1A, COL3A1, JAK2, MAPK14, CD42 | 19 |
| Lipid and atherosclerosis | 35.38 | 1.45E − 20 | PTK2, MMP9, CAMK2B, PPARG, FOS, BAX, JUN, IL6, NFKBIA, PRKCA, IL1B, SELE, CXCL8, NFE2L2, CXCL2, CASP1, JAK2, MAPK14, HSP90AA1, CCL5, RHOA, CDC42, HSPA42 | 23 |
| Fluid shear stress and atherosclerosis | 23.08 | 1.51E − 13 | PTK2, MMP9, VEGFA, FOS, JUN, IL1B, SELE, THBD, NFE2L2, NQ01, MAPK14, HSP90AA1, RHOA, GSTO1, ACTB | 15 |
| Proteoglycans in cancer | 26.15 | 2.33E − 13 | PTK2, MMP9, CAMK2B, VEGFA, CND1, PRKCA, MYC, TGFB1, COL1A1, FGFR1, ESR1, PRKACA, MAPK14, RHOA, CDC42, ACTB | 17 |
| Human cytomegalovirus infection | 24.61 | 1.41E − 11 | PTK2, PTGS2, VEGFA, CCND1, BAX, IL6, NFKBIA, PRKCA, MYC, IL1B, CXCL8, PRKACA, MAPK14, CCL5, RHOA | 16 |
| Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus infection | 21.54 | 2.64E − 10 | VEGFA, CCND1, FOS, BAX, JUN, IL6, NFKBIA, STAT1, MYC, CXCL8, CXCL2, JAK2, MAPK14 | 14 |
| Hepatitis B | 20.00 | 3.34E − 10 | FOS, BAX, JUN, IL6, NFKBIA, PRKCA, STAT1, MYC, CXCL8, TGFB1, JAK2, MAPK14 | 13 |
| MAPK signaling pathway | 24.62 | 7.75E − 10 | MAPT, INSR, VEGFA, FOS, JUN, PRKCA, MYC, IL1B, HSPB1, TGFB1, FGFR1, PRKACA, MAPK14, CDC42, HSPA2 | 16 |
| Salmonella infection | 21.54 | 6.95E − 09 | BAX, JUN, IL6, NFKBIA, MYC, IL1B, CXCL8, CASP1, MAPK14, HSP90AA1, RHOA, CDC42, ACTB | 14 |
| Chemical carcinogenesis—receptor activation | 20.00 | 9.16E − 09 | VEGFA, CCND1, FOS, JUN, PRKCA, MYC, PPARA, JAK2, ESR1, PRKACA, HSP90AA1, GSTO1 | 13 |
Figure 5MAPK signaling pathway, the red area was signal upregulation.
Molecular docking results.
| Compound | Target | PDB | Energy (kcal/mol) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quercetin | IL-6 | 4O9H | − 4.7 |
| Quercetin | VEGFA | 4G1W | − 6.47 |
| Quercetin | JUN | 1JUN | − 3.64 |
| Quercetin | MMP9 | 5TH6 | − 5.15 |
| Quercetin | EGFR | 3IKA | − 5.25 |
Figure 6Docking pattern of Que with key target molecules. (a) IL-6 and Que molecular docking; (b) VEGFA and Que molecular docking; (c) JUN and Que molecular docking; (d) MMP9 and Que molecular docking; (e) EGFR and Que molecular docking.
Figure 7The core action targets of Que on AF were differentially expressed in the GEO data set. Left atrial healthy controls n = 5, AF group n = 5. Values are expressed as mean ± SD. Compared with Control, *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01. (a) IL-6 differential expression; (b) VEGFA differential expression; (c) JUN differential expression; (d) EGFR differential expression; (e) MMP9 differential expression.
Figure 8Que reduces the duration of paroxysmal AF (n = 6 for each group). (a) A rat model of AF was successfully established. (b) Duration of AF. **P < 0.01 VS CON; #P < 0.05 VS AF, ##P < 0.01 VS AF; ^^P < 0.01 VS 75 mg/kg Que + AF.
Figure 9Que had no significant effect on LV function in each group (n = 6). (a) LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction. (b) LVFS: left ventricular shortening fraction. (c) LVESD: left ventricular end-systolic diameter. (d) LVEDD: left ventricular end-diastolic ductal diameter.
Figure 10Morphological and structural changes of atrial myocytes in each group of rats.
Figure 11(a) Changes in atrial muscle fibrosis in each group. (b) Differences in MAPK and P-MAPK protein expression in each group. 1: CON, 2: AF, 3: 75 mg/kg Que + AF, 4: 150 mg/kg Que + AF. **P < 0.01 VS CON; #P < 0.05 VS AF, ##P < 0.01 VS AF; ^P < 0.05 VS 75 mg/kg Que + AF.