| Literature DB >> 35999630 |
Hui Wang1, Zhongju Xu2, Qi Wang1, Shi Shu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Danshao Shugan Granules (DSSG), a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), is given to protect the liver. The objective is to evaluate the mechanisms of the effects of DSSG on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).Entities:
Keywords: Danshao Shugan Granules (DSSG); NF-кB; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); Silibinin; Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35999630 PMCID: PMC9396766 DOI: 10.1186/s12944-022-01689-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lipids Health Dis ISSN: 1476-511X Impact factor: 4.315
Fig. 1Flowchart of the study. NAFLD patients were treated with indicated drugs and outcomes were monitored for each regimen. Within the DSSG treated patients, 3 subgroups comprising 30 patients in each group were generated according to TCM specific categories and their intergroup outcomes have been compared
Fig. 2Flowchart of in vitro experiments. Rats in the NAFLD model group received high-fat diet for 8 weeks and were subsequently divided into a model group without treatment and a model DSSG group, which received DSSG for 8 weeks, with normal rats without special diet serving as controls
Fig. 3H&E staining images of rat liver tissues. A Control group, (B) NAFLD model group without treatment and (C) MDSSG group after application of DSSG. NAFLD model group liver hepatocytes without treatment included macrovesicular steatosis (yellow arrows) and inflammatory cell infiltrations (red arrows), which has been reduced by DSSG application. Magnification × 400
Biochemical indicators of patients (blood lipids, liver function and blood sugar), B-ultrasound, TCM symptom and signs score before treatment (baseline) and after 16 weeks of treatment
| Ros | Sil | DSSG | DSSG + Sil | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 30 | 50 | 130 | 50 | ||||
| TC (mmol/L) | Pre- treatment | 6.55 ± 0.19 | 6.56 ± 0.28 | 6.46 ± 0.55 | 0.340 | 6.50 ± 0.46 | > 0.05 | > 0.05 |
| Post treatment | 5.85 ± 0.15 | 6.41 ± 0.23 | 4.97 ± 0.33 | 6.02 ± 0.28 | ||||
| TG (mmol/L) | Pre- treatment | 2.83 ± 0.13 | 2.80 ± 0.59 | 2.72 ± 0.90 | 0.695 | 3.03 ± 0.71 | > 0.05 | > 0.05 |
| Post treatment | 2.26 ± 0.09 | 2.32 ± 0.51 | 1.80 ± 0.24 | 2.30 ± 0.41 | ||||
| ALT (U/L) | Pre- treatment | 76.84 ± 3.51 | 75.41 ± 6.99 | 74.98 ± 16.39 | 0.792 | 76.47 ± 8.60 | > 0.05 | > 0.05 |
| Post treatment | 71.18 ± 4.12 | 38.96 ± 4.51 | 44.01 ± 6.06 | 36.94 ± 4.01 | ||||
| AST (U/L) | Pre- treatment | 72.42 ± 2.69 | 74.21 ± 8.27 | 73.08 ± 16.16 | 0.822 | 76.99 ± 12.02 | > 0.05 | > 0.05 |
| Post treatment | 62.41 ± 2.32 | 54.20 ± 7.73 | 42.24 ± 4.96 | 53.26 ± 8.23 | ||||
| GGT (U/L) | Pre- treatment | 71.02 ± 3.28 | 74.99 ± 9.08 | 76.40 ± 10.64 | < 0.05 | 76.43 ± 9.95 | > 0.05 | > 0.05 |
| Post treatment | 47.20 ± 2.54 | 64.26 ± 7.68 | 47.58 ± 6.21 | 60.09 ± 6.30 | ||||
| FPG (mmol/L) | Pre- treatment | 6.09 ± 0.14 | 6.03 ± 0.29 | 5.89 ± 0.72 | 0.139 | 6.02 ± 0.36 | > 0.05 | > 0.05 |
| Post treatment | 4.26 ± 0.08 | 5.76 ± 0.29 | 5.52 ± 0.58 | 5.63 ± 0.31 | ||||
| B-ultrasonography | Cure | 4 (13.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 40 (31.0%) | < 0.05 | 5 (10.0%) | > 0.05 | < 0.05 |
| Obviously effective | 12 (40.0%) | 4 (8.0%) | 32 (24.5%) | < 0.05 | 11 (22.0%) | < 0.05 | > 0.05 | |
| Effective | 8 (27.0%) | 24 (48.0%) | 47 (36.0%) | 0.139 | 23 (46.0%) | > 0.05 | > 0.05 | |
| Non-effective | 6 (20.0%) | 21 (42.0%) | 11 (8.5%) | < 0.05 | 11 (22.0%) | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | |
| TCM symptom and signs score | Pre- treatment | 14.00 ± 0.51 | 13.92 ± 2.39 | 13.72 ± 1.10 | 0.529 | 14.76 ± 2.60 | > 0.05 | < 0.05 |
| Post treatment | 3.00 ± 0.31 | 9.10 ± 1.95 | 2.41 ± 0.43 | < 0.05 | 5.04 ± 2.27 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | |
Note: If the measured data were normally distributed, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) was used. Single factor variance analysis was used to make pairwise comparison among multiple groups. The test level was α = 0.05 and a P-value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Δ, value change before and after the rosiglitazone, Silibinin and DSSG treatments for the TCM symptoms and sign scores to compare the TCM syndrome. Group Ros: Rosiglitazone hydrochloride, 4 mg/time, once a day. Group Sil: Silibinin capsules, orally, 3 × 35 mg containing capsules, 3 times a day. Group DSSG: Patients received DSSG, 12 g/packages, each containing the above dose proportions; 2 packages/time, were administered 3 times a day. Group DSSG + Sil: DSSG (orally, 2 packages, 3 times a day) + Silibinin capsules (orally, 3 tablets, 3 times a day)
ALT alanine aminotransferase, AST aspartate amino transferase, DSSG Danshao Shugan Granules, FPG Fasting plasma glucose, GGT γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, TC total cholesterol, TCM traditional Chinese medicine, TG triacylglycerol
Biochemical indicators (blood lipid, liver function and blood glucose), B-ultrasonography and TCM syndrome scores of three TCM syndromes types (before treatment and 16 weeks after DSSG treatment)
| D1 | D2 | D3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 30 | 30 | 30 | ||
| TC (mmol/L) | Pre- treatment | 6.52 ± 0.19 | 6.50 ± 0.19 | 6.56 ± 0.17 | 0.439 |
| Post treatment | 5.15 ± 0.12 | 4.61 ± 0.09 | 4.77 ± 0.11 | ||
| TG (mmol/L) | Pre- treatment | 2.77 ± 0.26 | 2.72 ± 0.22 | 2.76 ± 0.14 | 0.630 |
| Post treatment | 1.77 ± 0.07 | 1.45 ± 0.06 | 1.66 ± 0.07 | ||
| ALT (U/L) | Pre- treatment | 75.58 ± 6.61 | 75.82 ± 5.16 | 77.92 ± 5.10 | 0.220 |
| Post treatment | 43.01 ± 2.41 | 33.95 ± 0.87 | 45.32 ± 1.55 | ||
| AST (U/L) | Pre- treatment | 76.93 ± 2.36 | 76.60 ± 2.85 | 78.17 ± 3.52 | 0.100 |
| Post treatment | 45.86 ± 1.46 | 41.04 ± 0.97 | 43.07 ± 1.44 | ||
| GGT (U/L) | Pre- treatment | 88.10 ± 3.75 | 86.20 ± 4.72 | 87.20 ± 3.37 | 0.190 |
| Post treatment | 55.00 ± 1.08 | 48.51 ± 1.66 | 48.86 ± 1.87 | ||
| FPG (mmol/L) | Pre- treatment | 5.88 ± 0.18 | 5.95 ± 0.15 | 5.86 ± 0.12 | 0.060 |
| Post treatment | 5.70 ± 0.13 | 5.55 ± 0.13 | 5.58 ± 0.10 | ||
| B-ultrasonography | Cure | 8 (26.7%) | 10 (33.3%) | 12 (40.0%) | 0.549 |
| Obviously effective | 11 (36.6%) | 7 (23.4%) | 6 (20.0%) | 0.303 | |
| Effective | 9 (30.0%) | 10 (33.3%) | 10 (33.3%) | 0.950 | |
| Non-effective | 2 (6.7%) | 3 (10.0%) | 2 (6.7%) | 0.857 | |
| TCM symptom and signs score | Pre- treatment | 14.07 ± 0.45 | 14.10 ± 0.44 | 14.20 ± 0.46 | 0.506 |
| Post treatment | 2.33 ± 0.26 a | 2.13 ± 0.32 b | 2.86 ± 0.27 c | < 0.001 | |
Note: If the measured data were normally distributed, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) was used. Single factor variance analysis was used to make pairwise comparison among multiple groups. a-c different lower case letters denotes a significant difference at P < 0.05 between the different treatment groups. The test level was α = 0.05 and a P-value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Δ, value change before and after the rosiglitazone, Silibinin and DSSG treatments for the TCM symptoms and sign scores to compare the TCM syndrome. D1 group, stagnation of liver-QI with deficiency of the spleen and phlegm stagnation; D2 group, phlegm stagnation, blood stasis, heat conversion of the dampness stagnancy; D3 group, damp depression, blood stasis, deficiency of liver-YIN
ALT alanine aminotransferase, AST aspartate amino transferase, DSSG Danshao Shugan Granules, FPG Fasting plasma glucose, GGT γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, TC total cholesterol, TCM traditional Chinese medicine TG triacylglycerol
Comparison of biochemical indices in rats
| N ( | MC ( | MDSSG ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLU (mmol/L) | 5.06 ± 0.36 c | 8.13 ± 0.32 a | 7.43 ± 0.22 b | < 0.01 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.48 ± 0.65 c | 11.49 ± 0.45 a | 6.79 ± 0.53 b | < 0.01 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.78 ± 0.26 c | 4.47 ± 0.49 a | 2.80 ± 0.36 b | < 0.01 |
| GOT (U/L) | 39.12 ± 6.00 b | 77.40 ± 4.93 a | 42.67 ± 5.36 b | < 0.01 |
| GPT (U/L) | 41.50 ± 4.52 b | 77.30 ± 4.92 a | 46.22 ± 4.54 b | < 0.01 |
| GGT (U/L) | 64.63 ± 6.48 c | 115.30 ± 10.30 a | 75.00 ± 5.22 b | < 0.01 |
| SOD (U/mg prot) | 417.39 ± 68.37 a | 214.87 ± 33.21 c | 295.11 ± 54.43 b | < 0.01 |
| MDA (nmol/mg prot) | 2.61 ± 0.63 b | 3.97 ± 0.50 a | 3.16 ± 0.68 b | < 0.01 |
Note: If the measured data were normally distributed, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) was used. For the animal experiments, the test data are expressed as the x ± SD, and single factor variance analysis was used to make pairwise comparison among multiple groups.The test level was α = 0.05 and a P-value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. a-c different lower case letters denote a significant difference at P < 0.05 between the different treatment groups. d one rat in the MDSSG group and another one in the normal group have died and were not included into the measurements
GGT γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, GLU glucose, GOT glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, GPT glutamic-pyruvic transaminase, MC model control group, MDA malondialdehyde, MDSSG Model group treated with DSSG, N normal group, SOD Superoxide dismutase, TC total cholesterol, TCM traditional Chinese medicine, TG triacylglycerol
Fig. 4Comparison of the expression of NF-кB in liver tissues of normal control (N), NAFLD model control (MC) and NAFLD model DSSG treated rats (MDSSG)