4.6 Article

Fecal metabonomics study of raw and bran-fried Atractylodis Rhizoma in spleen-deficiency rats

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2020.113416

关键词

Atractylodis Rhizoma; Processing mechanism; Spleen-deficiency; Metabonomics; Symbiotic metabolism of gut flora and host; Ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [81973478]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Processing herbal medicine is a classic characters of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinic. Stir-frying with bran is a common method of processing Atractylodis Rhizoma (AR), which is considered to enhance the therapeutic effect in TCM theory. However, the processing mechanism remains unclear. In our previous study, we found that bran-fried AR was better than raw AR in regulating gut flora. To further compare the effect of raw and bran-fried AR on the symbiotic metabolism of gut flora and host, we established a fecal metabonomics method of ARs intervention on spleen-deficiency rats by ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. 22 potential biomarkers of spleen-deficiency were identified under the positive and negative ion mode. Through the analysis of metabolic pathway, 6 significant changes of metabolic pathway were found, 5 of which were both improved by raw and bran-fried AR. Especially bran-fried AR was better than raw AR in the improvement of tyrosine metabolism and purine metabolism. Correlation analysis between the metabolic potential biomarkers and the microbiological biomarkers published in our previous study revealed that one of the spleen-strengthening mechanisms of ARs could be associated with the improvement of the symbiotic metabolism of gut flora and host by regulating gut-flora. The results can help us to understand the mechanism of AR intervention on spleen deficiency and the enhanced-efficacy mechanism of bran-fried AR. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据