两种中药制剂对大鼠骨质疏松模型的影响
作者:
作者单位:

作者简介:

陶琳,主管药师,研究方向:临床药学,(电话)18906345366,(电子信箱)niuniu12218@163.com

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

R318

基金项目:


Effect of two Chinese herbal preparations on osteoporosis model in rats
Author:
Affiliation:

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    [目的] 探讨两种中药制剂,即右归和补益,对骨质疏松症模型大鼠骨代谢、骨生物力学的影响。[方法] 48 只雌性 Wistar 大鼠随机分为假手术组、模型组、右归组和补益组,每组 12 只。假手术组动物不切除两侧卵巢,仅将卵巢周围的脂肪切除;其他动物切除双侧卵巢。术后 2 周所有动物每日上午灌胃 1 次,连续灌胃 12 周,右归组和补益组分别给予相应中药汤剂,药量为每次 0.875 ml /100 g;假手术组、模型组以等量的 0.9%氯化钠溶液。12 周后,采集血液和 24 h 内尿液,取左侧股骨进行骨密度及骨生物力学测试。[结果] 模型组尿 Ca/Cr [(0.6±0.3) vs (0.4±0.1), P<0.05] 和尿 P/Cr [(0.7±0.2) vs (0.5±0.1), P< 0.05] 显著高于假手术组;补益组 Ca/Cr [(0.3±0.1) vs (0.5±0.2 ) vs (0.4±0.1), P<0.05] 和 P/Cr [(0.3±0.2) vs (0.6±0.3 ) vs (0.5±0.1), P< 0.05] 显著低于右归组和假手术组。模型组 ALP 水平显著高于假手术组、补益组和右归组 [(193.4±9.2) U/L vs (128.6±10.4 ) U/L vs (110.4±9.8) U/L vs (128.9±8.5) U/L, P<0.05];而模型组的 PINP [(186.5±20.3) pg/ml vs (238.9±18.6) pg/ml vs (235.9±18.6) pg/ml vs (207.6±21.1) pg/ml, P<0.05] 和 BMP-2 [(10.5±0.1) pg/ml vs (15.8±0.2) pg/ml vs (15.7±0.3) pg/ml vs (13.2±0.4) pg/ml, P<0.05] 显著低于其他三组。补益组 ALP 水平显著低于其他组,而 PINP、BMP-2 浓度高于模型组和右归组 (P<0.05),与假手术组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。补益组骨密度、最大载荷、最大位移显著高于模型组、右归组(P<0.05),与假手术组差异无统计学意义(P> 0.05)。[结论]补肾健脾、益精填髓法具有对抗骨质疏松的效果。

    Abstract:

    [Objective] To explore the effect of two Chinese herbal preparations, the Yougui and Buyi on bone metabolism and bone biomechanics in the osteoporosis model of rats. [Methods] A total of 48 Wistar female rats were randomly divided into the sham group, mod- el group, Yougui group and Buyi group, with 12 rats in each group. The rats in the sham group had the fat around the ovaries resected only without ovariectomy, while all those in the remaining groups underwent ovariectomy. Two weeks after surgery, all animals were given intra- gastrically once a day for 12 weeks, the Yougui group and Buyi group received corresponding TCM preparations with dosage of 0.875 ml / 100 g/once time, respectively, whereas the sham group and model group were given 0.9% normal saline in the equal volume. After another 12 weeks, urine within 24 h and blood were collected for bone metabolism assay, and the left femur was taken for bone density and bone bio- mechanics tests. [Results] The model group was significantly higher than the sham group in terms of urine Ca/Cr [(0.6±0.3) vs (0.4± 0.1), P< 0.05] and urine P/Cr [(0.7±0.2) vs (0.5±0.1), P<0.05]. However, the Buyi group proved significantly superior to the Yougui group and model group in terms of Ca/Cr [(0.3±0.1) vs (0.5±0.2) vs (0.4±0.1), P<0.05] and P/Cr [(0.3±0.2) vs (0.6±0.3) vs (0.5± 0.1), P<0.05]. The model group was significantly higher in term of ALP level [(193.4±9.2) U/L vs (128.6±10.4) U/L vs (110.4±9.8) U/L vs (128.9±8.5) U/L, P<0.05], whereas significantly lower in PINP [(186.5±20.3) pg/ml vs (238.9±18.6) pg/ml vs (235.9±18.6) pg/ml vs (207.6±21.1) pg/ml, P<0.05] and BMP-2 [(10.5±0.1) pg/ml vs (15.8±0.2) pg/ml vs (15.7±0.3) pg/ml vs (13.2±0.4) pg/ml, P<0.05] than the sham group, Buyi group and Yougui group. The Buyi group had significantly lower ALP level, while significantly higher PINP and BMP- 2 than the model group and Yougui group (P<0.05), whereas without significant differences with the sham group (P>0.05). Moreover, the Buyi group proved significantly superi- or to the model group and Yougui group in terms of bone mineral density, maximum load and maximum displacement (P<0.05), without sig-nificant differences with the sham group (P>0.05). [Conclusion] In this study, the Buyi preparation of Chinese herbal does presents the ef- fect of anti-osteoporosis.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文

陶琳,王克强,王玫,等. 两种中药制剂对大鼠骨质疏松模型的影响[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2023, 31 (20): 1880-1885. DOI:10.3977/j. issn.1005-8478.2023.20.11.
TAO Lin, WANG Ke-qiang, WANG Mei, et al. Effect of two Chinese herbal preparations on osteoporosis model in rats[J]. Orthopedic Journal of China , 2023, 31 (20): 1880-1885. DOI:10.3977/j. issn.1005-8478.2023.20.11.

复制
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:2022-12-07
  • 最后修改日期:2023-05-10
  • 录用日期:
  • 在线发布日期: 2023-10-27
  • 出版日期: