柴芍胃炎颗粒对功能性消化不良模型大鼠胃窦Cajal间质细胞表达的影响

  本文关键词：柴芍胃炎颗粒对功能性消化不良模型大鼠胃窦Cajal间质细胞表达的影响，由笔耕文化传播整理发布。

        目的:建立大鼠功能性消化不良模型，通过柴芍胃炎颗粒对功能性消化不良(functional dyspepsia FD)模型大鼠疗效观察及胃窦部Cajal间质细胞（Interstitial cells of Cajal ICC）表达的影响，探讨柴芍胃炎颗粒治疗FD的作用机制。方法:将60只SD大鼠按随机化原则分成6组：空白对照组、模型对照组、柴芍胃炎颗粒高、中、低剂量组、多潘立酮组，每组10只。分笼饲养于钢丝网底塑料笼内，每笼5只，每组2笼。将同笼老鼠使用“夹尾刺激法”和“不规则喂养”造模14天，诱导FD的动物模型，造模期间观察大鼠饮水量和饮食量的变化。造模结束后用生理盐水、柴芍胃炎颗粒、多潘立酮干预FD模型大鼠，观察饮水量和饮食量的变化，14天后，采取腹主动脉取血观察大鼠血浆胃动素(Motilin MTL)、血清胃泌素(Gastrin GAS)水平，检测胃排空率，用免疫组化法检测c-kit，观察ICC的数量变化，以探讨柴芍胃炎颗粒治疗FD的作用机理。结果：1.一般情况的观察：造模结束后，空白对照组大鼠饮水、饮食量较稳定，无明显变化，体重较造模前明显增加；毛色洁白、柔软，有光泽，粪便性状、量和气味无特殊改变；精神状态良好。模型对照组大鼠饮水、饮食量逐渐减少，体重呈下降趋势；毛发污黄，干涩无光泽，粪便质软，含水份较多，气味秽臭刺鼻；性情暴躁，易被激惹，甚至相互撕咬，易惊恐，并互相聚集于鼠笼一角；中药组、多潘立酮组：大鼠治疗前一般情况与模型对照组大鼠无明显差别，治疗后，进食量、饮水量，体重较前明显增加；毛色无明显改变；粪便干燥含水量减少，气味秽臭；性情稍温顺，活泼，撕打明显减少。2、解剖大鼠观察胃及十二指肠有无器质性病变：造模结束后，6个实验组中，各组随机取大鼠2只，行腹部解剖剪开胃、十二指肠观察到胃及十二指肠粘膜色泽正常，无充血水肿，糜烂，，出血，无溃疡、隆起等器质性病变，符合FD的镜下特征。3、各组大鼠日均饮水量的比较：①与空白对照组比较：模型对照组、低、中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组日均饮水量明显低于空白对照组（P<0.01）。②与模型对照组比较：低、中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组日均饮水量明显高于模型对照组（P<0.01）。③与低剂量组比较：中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组日均饮水量明显高于低剂量组（P<0.01）。④与中剂量组比较：高剂量组日均饮水量明显高于中剂量组，多潘立酮组日均饮水量明显小于中剂量组（P<0.01）。⑤与高剂量组比较：多潘立酮组日均饮水量明显低于高剂量组（P<0.01）。4、各组大鼠日均饮食量的比较：①与空白对照组比较：模型对照组、低、中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组日均饮食量明显低于空白对照组（P<0.01）。②与模型对照组比较：低、中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组日均饮食量明显高于模型对照组（P<0.01）。③与低剂量组比较：中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组日均饮食量明显高于低剂量组（P<0.01）。④与中剂量组比较：高剂量组、多潘立酮组日均饮食量明显高于中剂量组（P<0.01）。⑤与高剂量组比较：多潘立酮组日均饮食量明显低于高剂量组（P<0.01）。5、各组大鼠体重的比较：①与空白对照组比较：模型对照组、低、中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组体重明显低于空白对照组（P<0.01）。②与模型对照组比较：高剂量组、多潘立酮组体重明显高于模型对照组（P<0.01）。③与低剂量组比较：高剂量组、多潘立酮组体重明显高于低剂量组（P<0.01）。④与中剂量组比较：高剂量组、多潘立酮组体重明显高于中剂量组（P<0.01）。⑤与高剂量组比较：多潘立酮组体重明显低于高剂量组（P<0.01）。6、各组大鼠胃排空率的比较：①与空白对照组比较：模型组、低、中剂量组、多潘立酮组胃排空率明显低于空白对照组（P<0.01），高剂量组与空白对照组胃排空率比较无统计学意义（P>0.05）。②与模型对照组比较：低、中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组胃排空率明显高于模型对照组（P<0.01）。③与低剂量组比较：中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组胃排空率明显高于低剂量组（P<0.01）。④与中剂量组比较：高剂量组、多潘立酮组胃排空率明显高于中剂量组（P<0.01）。⑤与高剂量组比较：多潘立酮组胃排空率明显低于高剂量组（P<0.01）。7、各组大鼠胃动素（MTL）的比较：①与空白对照组比较：模型对照组胃动素明显低于空白对照组（P<0.01），高剂量组胃动素明显高于空白对照组（P<0.01）。②与模型对照组比较：低、中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组胃动素明显高于模型对照组（P<0.01）。③与低剂量组比较：高剂量组胃动素明显高于低剂量组（P<0.01），中剂量组、多潘立酮组与低剂量组胃动素比较无统计学意义（P>0.05）。④与中剂量组比较：高剂量组、多潘立酮组与中剂量组胃动素比较无统计学意义（P>0.05）。⑤与高剂量组比较：多潘立酮组明显低于高剂量组（P<0.01）。8、各组大鼠胃泌素（GAS）的比较：①与空白对照组比较：模型对照组、低、中剂量组、多潘立酮组胃泌素明显低于空白对照组（P<0.01），高剂量组与空白组胃泌素比较无统计学意义（P>0.05）。②与模型对照组比较：低、中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组胃泌素明显高于模型对照组（P<0.01）。③与低剂量组比较：高剂量组胃泌素高于低剂量组（P<0.05），中剂量组、多潘立酮组与低剂量组胃泌素比较无统计学意义（P>0.05）。④与中剂量组比较：高剂量组胃泌素高于中剂量组（P<0.05），多潘立酮组与中剂量组胃泌素比较无统计学意义（P>0.05）；⑤与高剂量组比较：多潘立酮组胃泌素明显低于高剂量组（P<0.01）。9、各组大鼠胃窦组织中ICC阳性细胞的灰度值的比较：①与空白对照组比较：模型对照组、低、中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组胃窦ICC阳性细胞灰度值明显低于空白对照组（P<0.01）。②与模型对照组比较：低、中、高剂量组、多潘立酮组胃窦ICC阳性细胞灰度值明显高于模型对照组（P<0.01）。③与低剂量组比较：高剂量组胃窦ICC阳性细胞灰度值高于低剂量组（P<0.05），中剂量组、多潘立酮组胃窦ICC阳性细胞灰度值与低剂量组比较无统计学意义（P>0.05）。④与中剂量组比较：高剂量组胃窦ICC阳性细胞灰度值高于中剂量组（P<0.05），多潘立酮组胃窦ICC阳性细胞灰度值与中剂量组比较无统计学意义（P>0.05）。⑤与高剂量组比较：多潘立酮组胃窦ICC阳性细胞灰度值明显低于高剂量组（P<0.01）。结论:1、应用“夹尾刺激法”和“不规则喂养”联合造模，是单一采用“夹尾刺激法”或“不规则喂养”制备FD大鼠模型的改良，能复制较理想的FD大鼠模型。2、柴芍胃炎颗粒高剂量组胃窦ICC阳性细胞灰度值高于模型对照组、低、中剂量组、多潘立酮组，这说明高剂量组增加胃窦ICC的数量较模型对照组、低、中剂量组、多潘立酮组好。3、柴芍胃炎颗粒高剂量组对FD大鼠模型胃动素、胃泌素、胃排空率的影响优于模型对照组、低、中剂量组、多潘立酮组，这说明高剂量组能较好的促进胃肠动力。4、柴芍胃炎颗粒治疗FD大鼠的可能机制是：其影响了FD大鼠胃窦中的ICC，增加了胃窦ICC的数量，从而使胃动素、胃泌素的分泌增加，增强了胃肠道的动力，从而促进了胃排空。

    Objective： To establish on rats model of functionaldyspepsia,study the action mechanism of functional dyspepsia withChaishao gastritis particle therapy by observing on efficacy of Chaishaogastritis particles of functional dyspepsia rat model, and affecting onexpression of interstitial cells of Cajal in the rat antrum of Chaishaogastritis particles to functional dyspepsia model. Methods:60SD ratswere divided into6groups by the principle of randomization: blankcontrol group, model control group, high dose group Chaishao gastritisparticles, middle dose group Chaishao gastritis particles, low does groupChaishao gastritis particles,domperidone group (n=10). At the end ofsteel mesh plastic of cage,five per cage (n=2cage), feeding ratsseparately. The same cage of rats using the clip tail stimulation and madeirregular feeding mode14days,induced animal models of functionaldyspepsia modeling,rats were observed during the water intake and foodintake changes. After the modeling,with saline,Chaishao gastritis particles,domperidone interven the functional dyspepsia rat model to observechanges in water intake and food intake.14days later, to take theabdominal aorta blood to observe in rat plasma motilin levels, serumgastrin level, detection of gastric emptying rate,observed c-kit with immun ohistochemical assay, the ICC number of changes. To explore themechanism of functional dyspepsia with Chaishao gastritis particletherapies. Results:1.General observation: after the end of modeling, theblank control rats, water intake and food intake is more stable, nosignificant changes,the body weight compared with before modelingsignificantly increased; hair white, soft, luster, stool volume and odor nospecial change; good state of spirit. Model control rats, water intake andfood intake is gradually reduced, the weight gradually reduced trend;dirty yellow hair dry and dull, stool soft, more moisture, full of smellpungent; irascible, susceptible to irritation, and even biting each other,easily frightened, and each other gathered in the squirrel cage corner of;Chaishao gastritis particle group, domperidone group: before therapy, ratsgeneral situation with the model group rats no significant difference, aftertherapy, food intake, water intake, body weight significantly increasedcompared with the previous; hair no obvious change; Fecal dry，moisturecontent to reduce,full of the smell; temperament slightly docile,livelytussle significantly reduced.2. To observe rats with anatomy of have orwithout organic lesions of the stomach and duodenum: after the end ofmodel,the six experimental groups, each group were randomly selectedrats2, cut appetizer and duodenum,no observed stomach and duodenalmucosa, congestion and edema, erosion, bleeding, ulcer, uplift, and otherorganic disease, conform with endoscopic features of functional dyspepsia.3. Comparision of average daily water intake of rats in eachgroup:①Compared with the blank control group: average daily waterintake of model group, low dose group, middle dose group,high dosegroup and domperidone group was significantly lower than the blankcontrol group（P<0.01).②Compared with the model control group:average daily water intake of low dose group, middle dose group, highdose group and the group domperidone was significantly higher than themodel control group （P<0.01).③Compared with the low dosegroup:average daily water intake of middle dose group, high dose groupand the group domperidone was significantly higher than the low dosegroup（P<0.01).④Compared with the middle dose group:average dailywater intake of high dose group was significantly higher than themiddle dose group,the group domperidone was significantly lower thanthe middle dose group（P<0.01).⑤Compared with the high dosegroup:average daily water intake of the group domperidone wassignificantly lower than the high dose group（P<0.01).4. Comparisionof average daily food intake of rats in each group:①Compared with theblank control group: average daily food intake of model group, low dosegroup, middle dose group,high dose group and domperidone group wassignificantly lower than the blank control group（P<0.01).②Comparedwith the model control group: average daily food intake of low dosegroup, middle dose group, high dose group and the group domperidone was significantly higher than the model control group（P<0.01).③Compared with the low dose group:average daily food intake of middledose group, high dose group and the group domperidone wassignificantly higher than the low dose group（P<0.01).④Compared withthe middle dose group:average daily food intake of high dose group andthe group domperidone was significantly higher than the middle dosegroup（P<0.01).⑤Compared with the high dose group:average dailyfood intake of the group domperidone was significantly lower than thehigh dose group（P<0.01).5.Comparision of weight of rats in eachgroup:①Compared with the blank control group:weight of model group,low dose group, middle dose group,high dose group and domperidonegroup was significantly lower than the blank control group（P<0.01).②Compared with the model control group: weight of high dose group anddomperidone group was significantly higher than the model group（P<0.01).③Compared with the low dose group:weight of high dosegroup and domperidone group was significantly higher than the low dosegroup（P<0.01).④Compared with the middle dose group:weight of highdose group and the group domperidone was significantly higher than themiddle dose group （P<0.01).⑤Compared with the high dosegroup:weight of the group domperidone was significantly lower than thehigh dose group（P<0.01).6.Comparision of gastric emptying rate ofrats in each group:①Compared with the blank control group: gastric emptying rate of model group,low dose group, middle dose group anddomperidone group was significantly lower than the blank control group（P<0.01).the high dose group and the blank control group of gastricemptying rate was no significant difference（P>0.05）.②Compared withthe model control group: gastric emptying rate of low dose group, middledose group, high dose group and the group domperidone wassignificantly higher than the model control group（P<0.01).③Comparedwith the low dose group:gastric emptying rate of middle dose group, highdose group and the group domperidone was significantly higher than thelow dose group （P<0.01).④Compared with the middle dosegroup:gastric emptying rate of high dose group and the groupdomperidone was significantly higher than the middle dose group（P<0.01).⑤Compared with the high dose group:gastric emptying rateof the group domperidone was significantly lower than the high dosegroup（P<0.01).7.Comparision of Motilin of rats in each group:①Compared with the blank control group: Motilin of model group wassignificantly lower than the blank control group（P<0.01),Motilin ofhigh dose group significantly higher than the blank control group（P<0.01).②Compared with the model control group: Motilin of lowdose group, middle dose group, high dose group and the groupdomperidone was significantly higher than the model control group（P<0.01).③Compared with the low dose group:Motilin of high dose group was significantly higher than the low dose group（P<0.01),themiddle dose group, the domperidone group and the low dose groupMotilin was no significant difference（P>0.05）.④Compared with themiddle dose group:the high dose group, the domperidone group and themiddle dose group Motilin was no significant difference（P>0.05）.⑤Compared with the high dose group:Motilin of the group domperidonewas significantly lower than the high dose group （P<0.01).8.Comparision of Gastrin of rats in each group:①Compared with the blankcontrol group: Gastrin of model group, low dose group, middle dosegroup and domperidone group was significantly lower than the blankcontrol group（P<0.01),the high dose group and the blank control groupMotilin was no significant difference（P>0.05）.②Compared with themodel control group: Gastrin of low dose group, middle dose group, highdose group and the group domperidone was significantly higher than themodel control group （P<0.01).③Compared with the low dosegroup:Gastrin of high dose group was higher than the low dose group（P<0.05),the middle dose group, the domperidone group and the lowdose group Gastrin was no significant difference（P>0.05）.④Comparedwith the middle dose group:Gastrin of high dose group was higher thanthe middle dose group（P<0.05),the domperidone group and the middledose group Gastrin was no significant difference（P>0.05）.⑤Comparedwith the high dose group:Gastrin of the group domperidone was significantly lower than the high dose group（P<0.01).9.Comparision ofthe gray value of the ICC-positive cells in antral organization of rats ineach group:①Compared with the blank control group: the gray value ofthe ICC-positive cells in antral organization of model group, low dosegroup, middle dose group,high dose group and domperidone group wassignificantly lower than the blank control group（P<0.01).②Comparedwith the model control group: the gray value of the ICC-positive cells inantral organization of low dose group, middle dose group, high dosegroup and the group domperidone was significantly higher than the modelcontrol group（P<0.01).③Compared with the low dose group:the grayvalue of the ICC-positive cells in antral organization of high dose groupwas higher than the low dose group（P<0.05),the middle dose group, thedomperidone group and the low dose group of the gray value of theICC-positive cells in antral organization was no significant difference（P>0.05）.④Compared with the middle dose group:the gray value ofthe ICC-positive cells in antral organization of high dose group washigher than the middle dose group（P<0.05).the domperidone group andthe middle dose group of the gray value of the ICC-positive cells in antralorganization was no significant difference（P>0.05）.⑤Compared withthe high dose group:the gray value of the ICC-positive cells in antralorganization of the group domperidone was significantly lower than thehigh dose group（P<0.01).Conclusion:1." Tail clamp stimulation "and " irregular feeding " joint model is just only " tail clamp stimulation "or"irregular feeding " of FD rat model of improvement, able to replicate theideal FD rat model.2. The gray value of the ICC-positive cells in antralorganization of model group, low dose group, middle dose group anddomperidone group was lower than the high dose group，it’s means thehigh dose group, it’s means high dose group to increase the number ofthe gray value of the ICC-positive cells in antral organization comparedwith the mode control group, the low dose group, middle dose group anddomperidone group is better.3.High dose group of the Chaishao gastritisparticles of functional dyspepsia rat model’s motilin, gastrin and gastricemptying rate compared to the model control group, low dose group,middle dose group, domperidone group is better, it shows that the highdose group can be better to promote gastrointestinal motility.4.Thepossible mechanism of the treatment of Chaishao gastritis particles ofFD rats is，it influences the FD rat gastric antrum’s ICC, increasesthe number of antral the number of ICC, so improve in motilin andgastrin secretion, enhanced gastrointestinal motility, thereby promotinggastric emptying.

          柴芍胃炎颗粒对功能性消化不良模型大鼠胃窦Cajal间质细胞表达的影响

摘要4-9Abstract9-16前言17-19材料与方法19-25结果25-36讨论36-43结论43-44参考文献44-47英文缩略词表47-48致谢48-49综述49-61    参考文献55-61

  本文关键词：柴芍胃炎颗粒对功能性消化不良模型大鼠胃窦Cajal间质细胞表达的影响，由笔耕文化传播整理发布。