The preparations of Sijunzi decoction
Sijunzi decoction consisted of four crude herbs, Radix Ginseng (batch No. 401004713), Rhizoma Atractylodes Macrocephala (batch No. 002010401), Poria cocos (batch No. 002010301) and Glycyrrhiza uralensis (batch No. 003030601) at a ratio of 2:2:2:1 (W/W). All herbs were purchased from a local herbal shop (Tongrentang Herbal Co., Ltd., Xinxiang, China) and authenticated by the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Xinxiang Medical University, (Xinxiang, China). The preparation and manufacturing process of all herbs followed standard operating procedures according to a previous study [21]. The raw materials were socked in distilled water and boiled twice for 40 min, respectively. The drug solution was filtered and concentrated in a water bath at 70 oC to 80 oC. The final concentration was 2 g of crude drug materials/mL, and the solution was stored at 4 oC. For the delivery of Sijunzi decoction using the drug gavage method, 1 mL/100 g of body weight was delivered. The dosage of Sijunzi decoction used was the clinical dose converted into an experimental equivalent dose based on the standard body shape coefficient [22].
Animals and treatments
Thirty male Sprague Dawley 3-month-old rats with a body mass of 220 ± 10 g were provided by the Laboratory Animal Center of Henan Province (Zhengzhou, China) (Rodent license No. SCXK 20100002). After the cages were separated, the animals were kept in sterilized rooms at a constant temperature (20 ± 2 oC) and humidity (50 ± 20%), as well as natural circadian rhythm illumination. The rats were observed for 3 days to ensure they adapted to the environment and were healthy.
These rats were then randomly divided into three groups: the normal control group (NC, n = 10), the disease model group (M, n = 10), and the Sijunzi decoction-treated group (SJZD, n = 10). The preparation of the animal model followed standard operating procedures according to a previous study [21].NC rats were given a subcutaneous injection of 0.2 mL normal saline daily at 9 am and an intragastric dose of 2 mL distilled water daily at 4 pm.M rats were given a daily subcutaneous injection of 0.6 mg/kg of reserpineat 9 am and an intragastric dose of 2 mL distilled water at 4 pm. Rats in the Sijunzi decoction-treated group were given a subcutaneous injection of 0.6 mg/kg of reserpinedaily at 9 am and were given S Sijunzi decoction via gavage (1 mL/100 g of body weight) at 4 pm.The rats were treated daily for 14 days and weighed every morning. Successful modeling of spleen deficiency syndrome was confirmed by diarrhea, loss of appetite, weight loss, wilting, dull coat, and collapsing [23].
Animal welfare and experimental procedures were performed in accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Ministry of Science and Technology of China, 2006) and were approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of Xinxiang Medical University.
Sample collection
After the model was finished, the rats were anesthetized using 10% chloral hydrate and dissected. Liver tissues were resected and divided into three parts. One part of the samples was fixed in 3.7% (v/v) formalin solution for histopathological examination. The others were frozen in liquid nitrogen immediately and stored at -80 oC for further analysis (enzyme activity determination and proteomics analysis).
Histopathological examination
The same parts from resected liver tissues of each group were fixed in 3.7% (v/v) formalin solution immediately and imbedded into paraffin wax. Sections were then stained with hematoxylin-eosin stain and examined under a biological microscope to observe any morphological differences.
Enzyme activity analysis
Rat livers were comminuted using liquid nitrogen after removal from the refrigerator. The activities of SDH and LDH in the liver tissues were analyzed using the SDH and LDH assay kits (Nanjing Jiancheng Biological Engineering Co., Ltd, Nanjing, China), respectively.
Protein extraction and Protein digestion with the FASP method
The proteins from same parts of liver tissues were cut into pieces with clean scissors and lysed in an appropriate amount of SDT lysis buffer (SDS, dithiothreitol, Tris). Then, the liver lysate was ground repeatedly with a full-automatic sample frozen grinding machine (JXFSTPRP-III, Shanghai Jingxin Industrial Development CO., LTD, Shanghai, China) until completely pulverized. Samples were homogenized with a Vortex mixer (Digital Vortex-Genie 2; Scientific Industries, Inc., Bohemia, NY) and Ultrasonic treatments (100 W, 10s with 10s rest, 10 times in total) were utilized. After 5min of boiling in a water bath, the mixture was cooled to room temperature. After centrifugation, the supernatant of each sample was quantified using the fluorescence protein quantification method and analysed by SDS–PAGE.
A modified protocol based on the previous method was used for protein digestion [24]. Approximately 300 μg of protein extract from each sample was added into 200 μL of urea (UA) buffer (8 M Urea, 150 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.5). After mixing, the mixture was transferred into Microcon 10 kD ultra-fraction tube (Merck-Millipore, Germany) and then centrifuged at 14,000 g for 10min. The fluid in the bottom of the collecting pipe was discarded. 200 μL of UA buffer were put into an ultra-fraction tube, rotated at 14000 rpm (4 °C) for 15min. With the eluates discarded, 100 μL of iodoacetamide (IAA, Bio-Rad) buffer (50 mM IAA in UA buffer) were pipetted to the ultra-fraction tubes, the ultra-fraction tubes were shaken at 600 rpm for 1min, after which they were left at room temperature without light for 30 min, and then centrifuged at 14,000 × g for 10 min. To wipe off IAA, 100 μL UA buffer was added to the ultra-fraction tubes, and the spun in the above conditions; this was repeated two times. After that, the ultra-fraction tubes were washed twice with 100 μL of 50 mM NH4HCO3 and centrifuged at 14,000 g for 10min at room temperature. Then, 40 μL of trypsin buffer (5 μL of trypsin diluted in 40μL of 50 mM NH4HCO3; trypsin from Promega, Madison, WI,) was added into the ultra-fraction tubes. The samples were oscillated at 600 rpm for 1min. Then digestion was achieved at 37 °C for 16 to 18 h. The eluates were collected with new collecting tubes after centrifuging at 14,000 g for 10min. 25μL 25 mM NH4HCO3 was injected into each ultra-fraction tube. The ultra-fraction tubes were centrifuged at 14,000 g for 10min after being oscillated at 600 rpm for 1 min.This was repeated one times. Then, the filtrate was incorporated and lyophilized. The freezing-drying peptides were dissolved with 50 μL of a 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA, Sigma-Aldrich, USA). The fluorescence method (excitation wavelength of 295 nm, emission wavelength of 350 nm) was carried out to quantify the peptides and then analyzed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS).
LC-MS/MS analysis
A 5 μg sample of each group was analyzed in triplicate using LC/MS/MS. Analysis was conducted as previously described with few modifications [25]. The separation was done using an EASY-nLC1000 nanoflow HPLC (Thermo Scientific, USA). Flowing phases A and B were acetonitrile aqueous solution and acetonitrile solution, respectively, both containing 0.1% (v/v) formic acid (Sigma-Aldrich). The chromatographic trap column (RP-C18, 20 mm × 100 μm, 5μm; Thermo Scientific, USA) was equilibrated with 100% buffer A. The peptides were separated using the analysis column (RP-C18, 100 mm × 75 μm, 3μm; Thermo Scientific, USA) and trap column at a flow rate of 300 nL/min with a gradient from 0 to 45% buffer B for 200 min, then 45% - 100% buffer B for 200 - 216 min, and then 100% buffer B for 216-240 min.
MS/MS was performed using a LTQ Orbitrap Velos Pro Mass Spectrometer (Thermo Finnigan, San Jose, CA). The mass spectrometer was operated in positive mode using a data-dependent acquisition method. The scanning range of the parent ions was 350 - 1800 m/z. After each full scan, the 15 most intense precursors were selected for fragmentation. The dynamic exclusion for MS/MS was set as 30 s. The resolution of MS1 was 60,000 for 200 m/z. MS2 had unit mass resolution.
The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium (http://proteomecentral. proteomexchange.org) via the iProX partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD015449 [26].
Label-free analysis using Maxquant software
Original LC-MS/MS files were imported into Maxquant (version 1.5.3) (https://www.maxquant.org/.) for database search and label free quantification (LFQ) analysis [27]. The database was downloaded from Uniprot (uniprot_rat_29389_ 20150420.fasta, containing 29,389 sequences, downloaded on April 20, 2018). Specific parameters were selected as follows: Main search ppm (6), Missed cleavage (2), MS/MS tolerance ppm (20), De-Isotopic (TRUE), Enzyme (Trypsin), Fixed modification (Carbamidomethyl (C)), Variable modification (Oxidation (M), Acetyl (Protein N-term)), Decoy database pattern (reverse), LFQ (TRUE), LFQ min ratio count (1), Match between runs (2 min), Peptide false discovery rate (0.01), and Protein false discovery rate (0.01).
Identification of DEPs
DEPs were identified with a fold-change (FC) greater than 1.5 or less than 0.667. These selected DEPs were used in a random variance model t-test performed using SPSS version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Only proteins with a p value < 0.05 were considered to be significantly differentially expressed as previously reported [28, 29].
Bioinformatics analysis
A clustering analysis map was built using cluster 3.0 version 2.3 (Bio Fly Bioscience; www.bangfeibio.com/company) to identify DEPs with similar expression. Gene ontology (GO) annotation and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) annotation for each protein were retrieved from the GO (http://www.geneontology.org/) and KEGG pathway database (http://www.genome.jp/Pathway) [30, 31], respectively. Proteins in the GO analysis were related at three ontologies-biological process (BP), cellular components (CC), and molecular functions (MF) [32]. Protein-protein interaction networks of the DEPs were analyzed by ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA) version 9.0 (Redwood City, CA, http://www. ingenuity.com ).
Western blot analysis
Total proteins were extracted from samples of liver tissues (100 mg), and 40 μg proteins were separated by 12% SDS-PAGE and then transferred to PVDF membranes (Merck-Millipore, Germany). The membranes were blocked with 5% (w/v) non-fat milk in TBST for 1 h and then incubated with the primary antibodies overnight at 4 °C. After washing three times, the membranes were incubated with HRP-conjugated secondary antibody for 1 h at room temperature. Subsequently, the membranes were washed and were visualized with the enhanced chemiluminescence reagent (Sigma Chemical Co, USA) and the images were generated using an AzureC600 instrument (Azure Biosystems, USA) and were calculated by Gray analysis. All the primary and secondary antibodies used in this western blot analysis came from Cell Signaling Technology (Cell Signaling Technology, USA).
Statistical analysis
In the proteomics experiments, statistically significant differences (p value < 0.05) were analyzed between the M and SJZD or M and NC group. In the enzyme activity assays, data were reported as the mean ± standard error of mean (SEM) and statistically significant differences (p value < 0.05) were analyzed between the M and SJZD or M and NC group by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test. All statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 20.0 (SPSS, Armonk, New York, USA).