| Literature DB >> 36120310 |
Tiantian Liu1, Dan Wang1,2, Xinfeng Zhou1, Jiayin Song1, Zijun Yang1, Chang Shi1, Rongshan Li1, Yanwen Zhang1, Jun Zhang1, Jiuxing Yan1, Xuehui Zhu1, Ying Li3, Min Gong1, Chongzhi Wang4, Chunsu Yuan4, Yan Cui5, Xiaohui Wu1.
Abstract
American ginseng extract (AGE) is an efficient and low-toxic adjuvant for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, the metabolic mechanisms of AGE against T2DM remain unknown. In this study, a rat model of T2DM was created and administered for 28 days. Their biological (body weight and serum biochemical indicators) and pathological (pancreatic sections stained with HE) information were collected for further pharmacodynamic evaluation. Moreover, an ultra-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based (UHPLC-MS/MS-based) untargeted metabolomics method was used to identify potential biomarkers of serum samples from all rats and related metabolic pathways. The results indicated that body weight, fasting blood glucose (FBG), fasting blood insulin (FINS), blood triglyceride concentration (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) and insulin sensitivity index (ISI), and impaired islet cells were significantly improved after the high dose of AGE (H_AGE) and metformin treatment. Metabolomics analysis identified 101 potential biomarkers among which 94 metabolites had an obvious callback. These potential biomarkers were mainly enriched in nine metabolic pathways linked to amino acid metabolism and lipid metabolism. Tryptophan metabolism and glutathione metabolism, as differential metabolic pathways between AGE and metformin for treating T2DM, were further explored. Further analysis of the aforementioned results suggested that the anti-T2DM effect of AGE was closely associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction, dyslipidemia, immune response, insulin resistance, insulin secretion, and T2DM-related complications. This study can provide powerful support for the systematic exploration of the mechanism of AGE against T2DM and a basis for the clinical diagnosis of T2DM.Entities:
Keywords: American ginseng extract; metabolic pathways; metabolomics; potential biomarkers; type 2 diabetes mellitus
Year: 2022 PMID: 36120310 PMCID: PMC9479495 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.960050
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.988
FIGURE 1Body weight change of control, model, and treatment rats. Note: data are expressed as means ± SD (n = 6); BT: before treatment; AT: after treatment.
FIGURE 2Serum biochemical marker levels in each group. (A–F) respectively represent the levels of fasting blood glucose (FBG), fasting blood insulin (FINS), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), blood triglyceride concentration (TG), insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) and insulin sensitivity index (ISI) in serum samples. Note: data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6); Student’s t-test: compared with the control group, ****p < 0.0001,***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, and*p < 0.05; compared with the model group, #### p < 0.0001,### p < 0.001,## p < 0.01, and # p < 0.05.
FIGURE 3Pathological changes of H & E staining in pancreatic tissue of rats (×400).
FIGURE 4PCA score diagrams of the samples from control, model, and treatment rats in ESI + mode (A) or ESI- mode (B). PLS-DA score diagrams of the samples from control, model, and treatment rats in ESI+ (C) or ESI- (D) modes. The ellipse expresses that the confidence interval is 95%.
FIGURE 5OPLS-DA score diagrams of the samples from control vs. model in the positive mode (A) or negative mode (B); 7-fold cross-validation plot of the OPLS-DA model with 200 permutation tests in the positive mode (C) or negative mode (D); volcano plots of the samples from control vs. model in the positive mode (E) or negative mode (F). Ellipse expresses that the confidence interval is 95%.
FIGURE 6Heatmap of potential biomarkers. Rows: biomarkers; columns: samples. The shade in this picture depicts the relative expression size of metabolites in each group sample. Red depicts that the expression of biomarker was increased, blue depicts that the expression of biomarker was decreased (Mod vs. Con; Met vs. Mod; H_AGE vs. Mod).
FIGURE 7Metabolic pathway analysis. (A) refers to the pathway enrichment analysis of the intersectant metabolites between Mod vs Con and H_AGE vs Mod. (B) refers to the pathway enrichment analysis of the intersectant metabolites between Mod vs Con and Met vs Mod. The X-axis represents the impact value and the Y-axis represents–log10(p-value). The size of the bubble represents the impact value. The larger the bubble and higher the–log10(p-value), the greater the importance of the pathway.
Metabolic pathways associated with AGE treatment.
| Pathway description | Impact value |
| Related metabolite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taurine and hypotaurine metabolism | 0.38 | 0.000 | Taurine; L-glutamate; 3-sulfinoalanine |
| D-Glutamine and D-glutamate metabolism | 0.62 | 0.001 | L-Glutamate |
| Arginine biosynthesis | 0.14 | 0.003 | L-Glutamate; N2-acetyl-L-ornithine |
| Glutathione metabolism | 0.03 | 0.009 | Cysteinyl-glycine; L-glutamate |
| Butanoate metabolism | 0.01 | 0.009 | L-Glutamate; diacetyl |
| Glycerophospholipid metabolism | 0.07 | 0.01 | LysoPCs; PCs |
| Tryptophan metabolism | 0.12 | 0.02 | 5-Hydroxy- |
| D-Arginine and D-ornithine metabolism | 0.64 | 0.04 | D-Ornithine |