ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare pharmacodynamic difference of Ribes diacanthum (RDP) and Ribes mandshuricum (RMK) treatment on renal fibrosis in vivo and in vitro. Methods: Both of TGFβ1-induced HK-2 cell fibrosis model and UUO-induced kidney fibrosis mice model were used in the present study. The cell morphology, ratio of cell length to width, renal histopathology, protein expressions of α-SMA and E-cadherin in kidney tissues were evaluated through biological and pharmacological methods and technologies, including Western blot, immunohistochemistry, HE staining, Masson staining and so on. In addition, partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was applied to analyze the renal histopathological score as well. Results: RDP (1.5, 5, 15 μg/mL) and RMK (3, 10 μg/mL) effectively improved morphological changes and reduced the ratio of cell length to width in TGFβ1-induced HK-2 cell fibrosis; Moreover, RDP (40 mg/kg) and RMK (80 mg/kg) remarkably decreased the expression of α-SMA and increased the expression of E-cadherin in UUO mice model. The degree of pathological damage and fibrosis were also alleviated in both groups. PLS-DA analysis showed no significant difference in anti-fibrotic effects between RDP and RMK treatment. Conclusion: Both RDP and RMK have anti-fibrosis effects on TGFβ1-induced HK-2 cell fibrosis model and UUO-induced kidney fibrosis mice model, and there is no significant difference between these two herbs.
ABSTRACT
Objective To study the chemical constituents of 95% ethanol extract of Ribes mandshuricum. Methods A total of 27 compounds were isolated from R. mandshuricum using a combination of solvent extraction, silica gel, ODS, Sephadex LH-20, MCI column chromatography, recrystallization, and semi-preparative HPLC. Their chemical structures were elucidated by physicochemical properties and spectroscopic methods. Results These compounds were determined as kaempferol (1), kaempferol-7-O-β-D- glucopyranoside (2), kampferol-3-O-α-L-arabinopyranoside (3), kaempferol-3-O-α-L-arabinofuranosyl-7-O-α-L-rhamnopyranoside (4), kaempferol-7-O-α-L-rhamnopyranoside (5), kaempferol-3,7-di-O-α-L-rhamnopyranoside (6), kaempferol-3-O-β-D-galactopyranosyl- 7-O-α-L-rhamnopyranoside (7), kaempferol-3-O-β-D-glucopyranoside-7-O-α-L-rhamnoside (8), quercetin (9), quercetin-7-O-α-L- rhamnopyranoside (10), quercetin-3-O-β-D-glucopyranosyl-7-O-α-L-rhamnopyranoside (11), myricetin-3,7-di-O-α-L-rhamno- pyranoside (12), quercetin-7-O-β-D-galactopyranosyl-3-O-α-L-rhamnopyranoside (13), p-hydroxybenzoic acid (14), protocatechuic acid (15), vanillic acid (16), pleoside (17), glucosyringic acid (18), juniperoside (19), ethyl 4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzoate (20), phaseic acid (21), abscisic acid (22), jasminoside E (23), conocarpan (24), (24R)-24-ethylcholest-4-en-3,6-dione (25), (24R)-24-ethylcholest-4-en-3-dione (26), and 24-ethylcholesta-4,24(28)Z-lien-3-one (27). Conclusion Compound 20 might be an artifact presumably formed during the extraction process, and the others are isolated from the title plant for the first time.