[Comparative analysis of efficacy of different forms of Galli Gigerii Endothelium Corneum on functional dyspepsia in rats based on composition-pharmacodynamics].

ABSTRACT

A systematic evaluation of the differences in the chemical composition and efficacy of the different forms of Galli Gigerii Endothelium Corneum(GGEC) was conducted based on modern analytical techniques and a functional dyspepsia(FD) rat model, which clarifies the material basis of the digestive efficacy of GGEC. Proteins, enzymes, polysaccharides, amino acids, and flavonoids in GGEC powder and decoction were determined respectively. The total protein of the powder and decoction was 0.06% and 0.65%, respectively, and the pepsin and amylase potency of the powder was 27.03 and 44.05 U·mg~(-1) respectively. The polysaccharide of the decoction was 0.03%, and there was no polysaccharide detected in the powder. The total L-type amino acids in the powder and decoction were 279.81 and 8.27 mg·g~(-1) respectively, and the total flavonoid content was 59.51 µg·g~(-1). Enzymes and flavonoids were not detected in the decoction. The powder significantly reduced nutrient paste viscosity, while the decoction and control group showed no significant reduction in nutrient paste viscosity. FD rat models were prepared by iodoacetamide gavage and irregular diet. The results showed that both powder and decoction significantly increased the gastric emptying effect, small intestinal propulsion rate, digestive enzymes activity, gastrin(GAS), motilin(MTL), ghrelin(GHRL) and reduced vasoactive intestinal peptide(VIP), 3-(2-ammo-nioethyl)-5-hydroxy-1H-indolium maleate(5-HT), and somatostatin(SST) content in rats(P<0.05, P<0.01). Comparison of GGEC decoction and powder administration between groups of the same dosage level showed that gastrointestinal propulsion and serum levels of GAS, GHRL, VIP, and SST in the powder group were significantly superior to those in the decoction and that the gastrointestinal propulsion, as well as serum levels of MTL, GAS, and GHRL were slightly higher than those of the decoction with two times its raw dose, and the serum levels of SST, 5-HT, and VIP in the powder group were slightly lower than those of the decoction with two times its raw dose. In conclusion, both decoction and powder have therapeutic effects on FD, but there is a significant difference between the two effects. Under the same dosage, the digestive efficacy of the powder is significantly better than that of the decoction, and the decoction needs to increase the dosage to compensate for the efficacy. It is hypothesized that the digestive efficacy of the GGEC has a duality, and the digestive active ingredients of the powder may include enzymes and L-type amino acids, while the decoction mainly relies on L-type amino acids to exert its efficacy. This study provides new evidence to investigate the digestive active substances of the GGEC and to improve the effectiveness of the drug in the clinic.