| Literature DB >> 35957897 |
Juying Jiao1,2, Chien-Shan Cheng1,2, Panling Xu3, Peiwen Yang1,2, Linjie Ruan1,2, Zhen Chen1,2.
Abstract
Background: Damp-heat syndrome is one of the most important syndrome types in the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndrome differentiation and treatment system, as well as the core pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer (PC) which remains a challenge to medical researchers due to its insidious onset and poor prognosis. Great attention has been given to the impact of damp-heat syndrome on tumorigenesis and progression, but less attention has been given to damp-heat modeling per se. Studying PC in a proper damp-heat syndrome animal model can recapitulate the actual pathological process and contribute to treatment strategy improvement.Entities:
Keywords: cancer-associated fibroblasts; chemokines; damp-heat syndrome; evaluation indicators; mouse model; pancreatic tumor
Year: 2022 PMID: 35957897 PMCID: PMC9357947 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.947238
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Determination of the alcohol MTD for mice. (A) Dose incremental scheme of alcohol. (B) Exploration of the alcohol MTD for mice through the Fibonacci method. (C) Survival of mice at the critical points and above the critical point of alcohol dosage (n = 10 in each group). (D) Body weight of mice receiving different dosages of alcohol (n = 10 in each group). (E) Rectal temperature of mice receiving different dosages of alcohol (n = 6 in each group). (F) Urine volume of mice receiving different dosages of alcohol (n = 6 in each group). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Figure 2A damp-heat syndrome mouse model was established with the new and old methods. (A) Diagram for establishing a mouse model of damp-heat syndrome. (B) Activity status and anatomical view of mice in the three groups. (C) Body weight of mice over time. (D) Food intake of mice in the three groups over time. (E) Water consumption of mice in the three groups over time. (F) Survival of mice in the three groups over time.
Figure 3HE liver staining results of mice in the three groups at different time points after damp-heat induction and pathological observation of the intestine at the endpoint.
Figure 4Complete blood count and biochemical analyses. (A) Differential complete blood count indicators between the control group and the damp-heat syndrome group. (B) Differential biochemical indicators between the control group and the damp-heat group. Control: healthy mice (n = 23), Model: mice with damp-heat syndrome (n = 54). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Multivariate regression analyses based on complete blood count and biochemical indicators for determining damp-heat related factors.
| Factors | B | SE | Walds | Sig.* | Exp (B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| WBC (103/μL) | -1.408 | 0.439 | 10.284 | 0.001 | 0.245 |
| EOS (%) | 0.401 | 0.307 | 1.708 | 0.191 | 1.493 |
| LUC (%) | 4.084 | 1.392 | 8.604 | 0.003 | 59.377 |
| MPXI | 0.539 | 0.18 | 8.992 | 0.003 | 1.714 |
|
| |||||
| TRIG_2 (mmol/L) | -5.363 | 1.836 | 8.537 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| UN (mmol/L) | -0.51 | 0.204 | 6.271 | 0.012 | 0.6 |
Logistic regression (model=1, control=0), p < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant factor.
Figure 5Impact of damp-heat syndrome on the pancreatic tumor. (A) Appearance of mice in the four groups. (B) Tumors of mice with and without damp-heat syndrome. (C) Tumor weight of mice at the end of the experiment. (D) Tumor volume changes over time. (E) Body weight of mice in the four groups. (F) Histopathological observation of tumor tissue. C: control group, T: pancreatic tumor group, D: damp-heat syndrome group, TD: pancreatic tumor with damp-heat syndrome group. n = 6 in each group. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 compared with the T group.
Figure 6Chemokine differences between tumor-bearing mice with and without damp-heat syndrome. (A) Heatmap indicating serum chemokine distribution between the two groups (n = 10 in the T group, n = 9 in the TD group). (B) Heatmap indicating tumor tissue chemokine distribution between the two groups (n = 3 in each group). (C) Relative mRNA expression of tissue chemokines tested by qPCR (n = 10 in the T group, n = 9 in the TD group). (D) Relative protein expression of tissue chemokines tested by western blotting (n = 8 in each group). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 compared with the T group.