| Literature DB >> 36003993 |
Yong Zhi1, Shanshan Xie1, Changming Shao1, Binfang Zeng1.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze and test the effect of Rhizoma phragmitis and Rhizoma curcumae on the network pharmacology of MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) and TNF (tumor necrosis factor) signaling channels and inflammatory factor target gene regulation in successful modeling of chronic atrophic gastritis rats.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36003993 PMCID: PMC9385286 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3483774
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Activated ingredients of Rhizoma curcumae drug pairs.
| Mol ID | Name of active ingredient | OB (%) | DL |
|---|---|---|---|
| MOL000098 | Quercetin | 46.42 | 0.29 |
| MOL002894 | Norber berine | 35.73 | 0.72 |
| MOL002904 | Oxidized tillerine | 36.67 | 0.83 |
| MOL000785 | Palmatine | 64.59 | 0.66 |
| MOL002897 | Epiberberine | 43.08 | 0.79 |
| MOL002668 | Methylxanthine | 45.82 | 0.88 |
| MOL000296 | Ivy saponin element | 36.92 | 0.74 |
Prediction of disease KEGG pathway by Rhizoma phragmitis and Rhizoma curcumae drugs.
| Signaling pathways | Associated gene number |
|
|---|---|---|
| NF- | 12 | 1.53 |
| HIF-1 signaling pathway | 12 | 2.93 |
| Toll-like receptor signaling pathway | 13 | 9.45 |
| FoxO signaling pathway | 13 | 1.48 |
| p53 signaling pathway | 10 | 3.05 |
| T-cell receptor signaling pathway | 12 | 8.87 |
| TNF signaling pathway | 20 | 2.24 E−17 |
| MAPK signaling pathway | 16 | 3.67 |
| ErbB signaling pathway | 10 | 3.62 |
| NOD-like receptor signaling pathway | 11 | 5.93 |
The comparison of curative effects between the two groups (n,%).
| Group | Number of cases | Invalid | Effective | Significantly effective | Efficient |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 38 | 9 (23.38) | 10 (26.31) | 19 (50) | 76.32% |
| Study group | 38 | 1 (2.63) | 8 (21.05) | 29 (76.32) | 97.37% |
|
| — | — | — | — | 7.37 |
|
| — | — | — | — | <0.01 |
Comparison of inflammatory factor levels between the two groups ().
| Group | Number of cases | EGF (ng/mL) | TNF- | SOD (U/mg) | MDA (nmol/mg) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | ||
| Control group | 38 | 1.35 ± 0.69 | 1.52 ± 0.71 | 30.25 ± 2.08 | 18.69 ± 1.67 | 260.35 ± 15.26 | 358.68 ± 15.49 | 10.24 ± 2.25 | 6.12 ± 1.87 |
| Study group | 38 | 1.37 ± 0.72 | 2.76 ± 0.74 | 30.21 ± 2.13 | 14.39 ± 1.21 | 261.60 ± 16.55 | 410.27 ± 20.13 | 10.23 ± 2.32 | 4.13 ± 1.75 |
|
| — | 0.139 | 8.377 | 0.093 | 14.446 | 0.385 | 14.072 | 0.021 | 5.383 |
|
| — | 0.890 | <0.001 | 0.926 | <0.001 | 0.701 | <0.001 | 0.983 | <0.001 |
Figure 1Comparison of inflammatory factor levels between the two groups.
Figure 2Comparison of pain behavioral scores between the two groups.
Figure 3Comparison of free acid quantity and total acid quantity between the two groups. Note.#P indicates that the differences in MCS and PCS scores were statistically significant when compared before and after treatment within the group.
Figure 4Comparison of gastric function indexes between the two groups.
Figure 5Comparison of the number of 24 h reflux and the longest reflux time between the two groups.