| Literature DB >> 36117562 |
Xu Xu1, Wei-Ting Wang2, Zhuan-You Zhao2, Wen-Gong Xi2, Bing Yu2, Chun-Hua Hao2, Xin Li1, Wen-Bin Hou3, Li-da Tang2.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the therapeutic effect of total iridoid glycosides of Picrorhiza scrophulariiflora (TIGP) on non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).Entities:
Keywords: HOMA-IR; TNF-α; leptin; non-alcoholic steatohepatitis; total iridoid glycosides of Picrorhiza scrophulariiflora
Year: 2020 PMID: 36117562 PMCID: PMC9476743 DOI: 10.1016/j.chmed.2019.12.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chin Herb Med ISSN: 1674-6384
Fig. 1Route of whole experiment (A) and verification of NASH model by H&E staining (× 200) (B). (a) normal control rats; (b) NASH model rats.
Semi-quantitative scoring criteria for hepatocyte liposis.
| Conditions of hepatocyte liposis | Levels | Scores |
|---|---|---|
| Number of lipid-containing cells in a fat cell < 1/20 | 0 | 0 |
| Number of lipid-containing cells in a fat cell < 1/4 | I | 1 |
| Number of lipid-containing cells in a fat cell < 1/2 | II | 2 |
| Number of lipid-containing cells in a fat cell < 3/4 | III | 3 |
| Liver tissue was almost replaced by lipid droplets | IV | 4 |
Effect of high-fat and high-sugar diet on hepatocyte liposis (mean ± SD, n = 5).
| Groups | Severity of lipid degeneration | Focal necrosis counts | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ | Ⅳ | Total scores | ||
| Normal | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.8 ± 1.9 |
| NASH | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 29.8 ± 7.9 |
P < 0.001 significance vs normal control group.
Effects of TGPS on TC, TG and FFA in liver of NASH rats (mean ± SD, n = 10).
| Groups | Doses/(mg•kg−1) | TC/(mmol•100 g−1 liver) | FFA/(µmol•100 g−1 liver) | TG/(mmol•100 g−1 liver) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | − | 1.70 ± 0.16 | 0.86 ± 0.10 | 2.60 ± 0.72 |
| Model | − | 3.28 ± 0.86 | 2.08 ± 0.42 | 4.38 ± 0.50 |
| TIGP | 20 | 2.85 ± 0.79 | 1.83 ± 0.35 | 3.72 ± 0.64 |
| TIGP | 40 | 2.35 ± 0.75 | 1.71 ± 0.29 | 3.50 ± 0.66 |
| TIGP | 80 | 2.19 ± 0.72 | 1.75 ± 0.25 | 2.98 ± 0.74 |
| Silybin | 160 | 2.26 ± 0.77 | 1.74 ± 0.23 | 3.00 ± 0.47 |
P < 0.01 vs corresponding normal control group.
P < 0.05 and
P < 0.01 vs corresponding model control group.
Effects of TIGP on lipid metabolism (mean ± SD, n = 10).
| Groups | Doses/(mg•kg−1) | TC/(mmol•L−1) | TG/(mmol•L−1) | HDL-C/(mmol•L−1) | LDL-C/(mmol•L−1) | HDL-C/ LDL-C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | − | 0.35 ± 0.09 | 1.78 ± 0.09 | 0.50 ± 0.09 | 0.33 ± 0.07 | 1.60 ± 0.51 |
| Model | − | 0.53 ± 0.08 | 2.40 ± 0.20 | 1.22 ± 0.27 | 1.09 ± 0.12 | 1.11 ± 0.17 |
| TIGP | 20 | 0.46 ± 0.05 | 2.31 ± 0.30 | 1.18 ± 0.19 | 0.89 ± 0.10 | 1.34 ± 0.30 |
| TIGP | 40 | 0.39 ± 0.09 | 2.12 ± 0.22 | 1.19 ± 0.24 | 0.72 ± 0.21 | 1.75 ± 0.55 |
| TIGP | 80 | 0.35 ± 0.07 | 1.96 ± 0.22 | 1.18 ± 0.21 | 0.65 ± 0.21 | 1.97 ± 0.55 |
| Silybin | 160 | 0.39 ± 0.07 | 2.03 ± 0.24 | 1.24 ± 0.19 | 0.65 ± 0.14 | 1.99 ± 0.47 |
P < 0.01 vs corresponding normal control value.
P < 0.05 and
P < 0.01 vs corresponding model control group.
Effects of TIGP on serum ALT and AST in NASH rats (mean ± SD, n = 10).
| Groups | Doses / (mg•kg−1) | ALT / (U•L−1) | AST / (U•L−1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | − | 39.1 ± 10.7 | 116.3 ± 25.7 |
| Model | − | 60.2 ± 10.6 | 196.8 ± 25.3 |
| TIGP | 20 | 52.9 ± 7.4 | 161.1 ± 31.6 |
| TIGP | 40 | 43.6 ± 11.9 | 132.3 ± 26.6 |
| TIGP | 80 | 45.5 ± 7.7 | 133.9 ± 36.4 |
| Silybin | 160 | 47.6 ± 7.0 | 155.6 ± 33.3 |
P <0.01 vs corresponding normal control group.
P <0.05 and
P <0.01 vs corresponding model control group.
Effects of TIGP on SOD and MDA in liver of NASH rats (mean ± SD, n = 10).
| Groups | Doses/(mg·kg−1) | SOD/(U·mL−1·mg−1 prot) | MDA/(mmol·L−1·mg−1 prot) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | − | 34.6 ± 5.8 | 141 ± 31 |
| Model | − | 25.4 ± 5.3 | 224 ± 29 |
| TIGP | 20 | 28.4 ± 5.7 | 198 ± 22 |
| TIGP | 40 | 32.3 ± 5.3 | 175 ± 26 |
| TIGP | 80 | 35.8 ± 5.5 | 158 ± 29 |
| Silybin | 160 | 34.9 ± 5.1 | 160 ± 30 |
P <0.01 vs corresponding normal control group.
P <0.05 and
P <0.01 vs corresponding model control group.
Effect of TIGP on GLU, INS and HOMA-IR in NASH rats (mean ± SD, n = 10).
| Groups | Doses/(mg·kg−1) | GLU/(mmol·L−1) | INS/(ng·L−1) | HOMA-IR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | − | 4.73 ± 0.81 | 356 ± 39 | 74 ± 7 |
| Model | − | 6.43 ± 0.85 | 388 ± 29 | 111 ± 19 |
| TIGP | 20 | 4.94 ± 0.67 | 371 ± 33 | 81 ± 12 |
| TIGP | 40 | 4.57 ± 0.88 | 368 ± 33 | 75 ± 19 |
| TIGP | 80 | 4.71 ± 0.93 | 357 ± 47 | 71 ± 15 |
| Silybin | 160 | 5.96 ± 0.69 | 372 ± 31 | 98 ± 13 |
P < 0.05 and
P < 0.01 vs corresponding normal control group.
P <0.05 and
P <0.01 vs corresponding model control group.
Effect of TIGP on cytokines in NASH rats (mean ± SD, n = 10).
| Groups | Doses/(mg·kg−1) | TNF-α/(pg·mL−1) | IL-6/(pg·mL−1) | MCP-1/(pg·mL−1) | LEP/(pg·mL−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | − | 354 ± 86 | 135 ± 24 | 190 ± 24 | 936 ± 297 |
| Model | − | 571 ± 120 | 161 ± 31 | 231 ± 44 | 1336 ± 302 |
| TIGP | 20 | 524 ± 108 | 148 ± 21 | 226 ± 53 | 1275 ± 299 |
| TIGP | 40 | 499 ± 100 | 139 ± 34 | 198 ± 39 | 1068 ± 361 |
| TIGP | 80 | 426 ± 67 | 139 ± 27 | 205 ± 37 | 1043 ± 229 |
| Silybin | 160 | 444 ± 119 | 153 ± 27 | 205 ± 31 | 1231 ± 240 |
P <0.05 and
P <0.01 vs corresponding normal control group.
P<0.05 and
P < 0.01 vs corresponding model control group.
Fig. 2Effect of TIGP on steatosis and inflammation of hepatocytes (H&E, × 200).