The SMs of HV and its screening. A total of 24 SMs from HV were reported in NPASS database, targets of which were obtained by SEA (574) and STP (514) databases (Table 2; Supplementary Table S1). The CHEMBL566278 (PubChem ID: 5281113) and Ins (1,2,5,6)P4 (PubChem ID: 14033625) were excluded from the retrieved 24 SMs, due to the violation of Lipinski’s rule. Between the SEA and STP, the number of 79 overlapping targets was finally selected as valid targets associated with HV (Fig. 2a).
The SMs of GM and confirmation of core targets against NAFLD. Then, a total of 208 SMs (Supplementary Table S1) were browsed from the gutMGene database, finally, we identified the 668 overlapping targets between SEA (1256) and STP (947) databases (Supplementary Table S1) (Fig. 2b). The number of 66 intersecting targets was identified by comparison with the overlapping targets of Fig. 2A and Fig. 2B, suggesting that the 66 overlapping targets were considered as critical targets to affect inherently with SMs from GM and SMs from HV (Supplementary Table S1; Fig. 2c). The overlapping 66 targets obtained by the comparison analysis were examined with NAFLD targets, thereby, the number of 31 core targets was identified between the overlapping 66 target and NAFLD targets (Supplementary Table S1; Fig. 2d).
The PPI network analysis. To attain the detailed interaction with each target of HV and GM functioning on NAFLD, the final 31 key targets of SMs and NAFLD were input into STRING database to describe the PPI network. The information extracted by STRING database was placed into R Package to understand what a hub target is. The network study suggested that each target was associated with its neighbor target(s) by establishing 30 nodes linked to 74 edges (Fig. 3a). Among 31 core targets, OXER1 was not any associations with one another. A newly constructed network via R Package indicated that Jun proto-oncogene (JUN) was the most influential protein-coding gene in the entire PPI network, with the highest degree value (16). The classified ranking of each target in the PPI network is profiled in Table 3.
Table 2. The number 24 secondary metabolites of HV from NPASS database.
No.
|
Compounds
|
|
Lipinski's Rules
|
Lipinski's Violations
|
Bioavailability Score
|
TPSA(Ų)
|
PubChem ID
|
MW
|
HBA
|
HBD
|
MLog P
|
|
< 500
|
< 10
|
≤ 5
|
≤ 4.15
|
≤ 1
|
> 0.1
|
< 140
|
1
|
Salicylic Acid
|
338
|
138.12
|
3
|
2
|
0.99
|
0
|
0.85
|
57.53
|
2
|
Gramine
|
6890
|
174.24
|
1
|
1
|
1.55
|
0
|
0.55
|
19.03
|
3
|
Indole-3-Acetic Acid
|
802
|
175.18
|
2
|
2
|
1.11
|
0
|
0.85
|
53.09
|
4
|
Tyramine
|
5610
|
137.18
|
2
|
2
|
1.21
|
0
|
0.55
|
46.25
|
5
|
Hordenine
|
68313
|
165.23
|
2
|
1
|
1.83
|
0
|
0.55
|
23.47
|
6
|
Dormin
|
5375200
|
264.32
|
4
|
2
|
1.44
|
0
|
0.85
|
74.6
|
7
|
Niacin
|
938
|
123.11
|
3
|
1
|
-1.13
|
0
|
0.85
|
50.19
|
8
|
Abscisic Acid
|
5375199
|
264.32
|
4
|
2
|
1.44
|
0
|
0.85
|
74.6
|
9
|
5-hydroxy-2-nonylchromone
|
365028
|
288.38
|
3
|
1
|
2.62
|
0
|
0.55
|
50.44
|
10
|
S-Methylmethionine Sufonium
|
145692
|
164.25
|
3
|
2
|
-1.82
|
0
|
0.55
|
88.62
|
11
|
Tryptanthrin
|
73549
|
248.24
|
3
|
0
|
2.22
|
0
|
0.55
|
51.96
|
12
|
CHEMBL566278
|
5281113
|
550.65
|
8
|
9
|
1.34
|
3
|
0.17
|
218.44
|
13
|
(+)-Abscisic Acid
|
5280896
|
264.32
|
4
|
2
|
1.44
|
0
|
0.85
|
74.6
|
14
|
Nonanol
|
8914
|
144.25
|
1
|
1
|
2.54
|
0
|
0.55
|
20.23
|
15
|
Ethylparaben
|
8434
|
166.17
|
3
|
1
|
1.64
|
0
|
0.55
|
46.53
|
16
|
Putrescine Hydrochloride
|
9532
|
161.07
|
2
|
2
|
0.61
|
0
|
0.55
|
52.04
|
17
|
Hordenine Sulfate
|
77147
|
263.31
|
6
|
3
|
0.31
|
0
|
0.55
|
106.45
|
18
|
Putrescine
|
1045
|
88.15
|
2
|
2
|
-0.18
|
0
|
0.55
|
52.04
|
19
|
Ins(1,2,5,6)P4
|
14033625
|
500.08
|
18
|
10
|
-6.17
|
3
|
0.11
|
346.74
|
20
|
Malonic Acid
|
867
|
104.06
|
4
|
2
|
-0.99
|
0
|
0.85
|
74.6
|
21
|
Jasmonic Acid
|
5281166
|
210.27
|
3
|
1
|
1.68
|
0
|
0.85
|
54.37
|
22
|
N,N'-Bis(3-Aminopropyl)Heptane-1,7-Diamine
|
492218
|
244.42
|
4
|
4
|
1.03
|
0
|
0.55
|
76.1
|
23
|
Tryptamine
|
1150
|
160.22
|
1
|
2
|
1.26
|
0
|
0.55
|
41.81
|
24
|
Gibberellin A3
|
6466
|
346.37
|
6
|
3
|
1.66
|
0
|
0.55
|
104.46
|
MD test on JUN target and bubble plot results. On molecular docking (MD), we confirmed what the most significant SMs on JUN protein. Tryptanthrin derived from HV formed the most stable complex with JUN protein, with − 10.7 kcal/mol as a binding energy (Fig. 3b; Fig. 3c; Table 4). It can be thus elicited that HV exerts the positive effects to ameliorate NAFLD. Next, the bubble plot suggested that the number of 16 overlapping targets was related directly to 6 signaling pathways (Fig. 3d).
No.
|
Target name
|
Degree value
|
No.
|
Target name
|
Degree value
|
Table 3. The degree value of the final 30 core targets.
1
|
JUN
|
16
|
16
|
NR4A1
|
3
|
2
|
ESR1
|
15
|
17
|
EDNRA
|
3
|
3
|
MMP9
|
10
|
18
|
SHBG
|
3
|
4
|
HDAC2
|
8
|
19
|
TGM2
|
3
|
5
|
MMP2
|
8
|
20
|
CNR1
|
3
|
6
|
MCL1
|
7
|
21
|
FABP4
|
2
|
7
|
ACE
|
7
|
22
|
HCAR2
|
2
|
8
|
HDAC3
|
7
|
23
|
FABP5
|
2
|
9
|
HDAC1
|
7
|
24
|
ERN1
|
2
|
10
|
HDAC9
|
6
|
25
|
CNR2
|
2
|
11
|
MMP1
|
5
|
26
|
NOS1
|
2
|
12
|
HDAC5
|
5
|
27
|
STS
|
2
|
13
|
ESR2
|
5
|
28
|
ACLY
|
2
|
14
|
RARA
|
5
|
29
|
MIF
|
1
|
15
|
NOS2
|
4
|
30
|
NAAA
|
1
|
Table 5. The description of six signaling pathways on NAFLD.
KEGG ID & Description
|
Target
|
False discovery rate
|
hsa04926: Relaxin signaling pathway
|
JUN, MMP1, MMP2, MMP9, NOS1, NOS2
|
0.00000982
|
hsa04915: Estrogen signaling pathway
|
JUN, MMP2, MMP9, ESR1, ESR2, RARA
|
0.00000982
|
hsa03320: PPAR signaling pathway
|
MMP1, FABP4, FABP5
|
0.00700000
|
hsa04919: Thyroid hormone signaling pathway
|
ESR1, HDAC1, HDAC2, HDAC3
|
0.00170000
|
hsa04657: IL-17 signaling pathway
|
JUN, MMP1, MMP9
|
0.01160000
|
hsa04371: Apelin signaling pathway
|
NOS1, NOS2, HDAC5
|
0.02510000
|
The most significant signaling pathway was Apelin signaling pathway with lowest rich factor, indicating that the signaling pathway dampens to ameliorate NAFLD on SMs from HV and GM (Table 5).
MBSTM networks investigation. The MBSTM networks demonstrated that 45 GM, HV, a key signaling pathway, 3 targets, and 33 metabolites (83 nodes, and 93 edges) were correlated with Apelin signaling pathway (Fig. 4). In the MBSTM network, green circles (nodes) represent the GM; red circles (nodes) stand for Apelin signaling pathway; orange circles (nodes) indicate targets; and sky-blue circles (nodes) indicate SMs. The gray line (edge) represents the relationship of each node.
MD test results on Apelin signaling pathway. On MD, we confirmed what the most significant SMs on each target are. In detail, Dihydroglycitein (-7.8 kcal/mol) converted by Eubacterium limosum 18 bound stably on HDAC5 (PDB ID: 5UWI) had hydrogen bond interactions of Ser94, and Ser950 and hydrophobic interactions of Thr97, Gly19, Asp18, Asn100, Glu70, Gly68, Lys949, and Val96 provided HDAC5-Dihydroglycitein complex (Fig. 5a). Also, 1,3-Diphenylpropan-2-ol (known as DA-05096) (-7.7 kcal/mol) converted by Eggerthella sp. SDG-2 19 had the highest affinity on NOS1 (PDB ID: 4D1N), and the complex provided hydrogen bond interactions of Arg419 and hydrophobic interactions with Leu705, Arg704, Ser708, Phe709, Glu710, Met575, Tyr711, Ser418, Asn416, and Ala417 (Fig. 5b). Then, Acetic (-7.9 kcal/mol) converted by Alistipes indistinctus YIT 12060 20, Odoribacter laneus YIT 12061 20, Paraprevotella clara YIT 11840 21, and Paraprevotella xylaniphila YIT 11841 21 had the greatest affinity on NOS2 (PDB ID: 4NOS), containing two hydrogen bonds (Gln149, and Gln192) and six hydrophobic interactions (Ser486, Glu145, Phe146, Asn148, Leu485, and Arg454) (Fig. 5c). Also, its binding energy and interactive residues’ information had been profiled in Table 6.
Drug-likeness and toxicity screening on the four key SMs. Finally, the number of four SMs (Tryptanthrin, Dihydroglycitein, 1,3-Diphenylpropan-2-ol, and Acetic) was confirmed and established on drug-likeness properties and toxicity level via in silico verification (Table 7). The SMs had no physicochemical impediments to be developed as new agents. The chemical structures of the four key SMs were displayed in Fig. 6.
The identification of key components against NAFLD. Above described, the complexes of the key four SMs and its targets were transduced to four signaling pathways: Relaxin signaling pathway, Estrogen signaling pathway, and IL-17 signaling pathway as agonistic mechanism by forming Tryptanthrin-JUN complex, conversely, Apelin signaling pathway as antagonistic mechanism by exerting strong affinity with Dihydroglycitein-HDAC5; 1,3-Diphenylpropan-2-ol-NOS1; and Acetic-NOS2 complexes. The descriptive figure was represented in Fig. 7.