Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30174607›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2018

Andrographolide Sulfonate Attenuates Acute Lung Injury by Reducing Expression of Myeloperoxidase and Neutrophil-Derived Proteases in Mice.

Fei Gao, Xing Liu, Ziying Shen, Xiaohui Jia, Han He, Jing Gao, Jianhong Wu, Chunhong Jiang, Hu Zhou, Yiping Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Alveolar macrophage-neutrophil crosstalk in acute lung injury: mechanisms, feedback loops, and therapeutic opportunities.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Fei GaoState Key Laboratory of Drug Research, Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Xing LiuDepartment of Analytical Chemistry and CAS Key Laboratory of Receptor Research, Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Ziying ShenState Key Laboratory of Drug Research, Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Xiaohui JiaState Key Laboratory of Drug Research, Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Han HeDepartment of Analytical Chemistry and CAS Key Laboratory of Receptor Research, Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Jing GaoDepartment of Analytical Chemistry and CAS Key Laboratory of Receptor Research, Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Jianhong WuDepartment of Analytical Chemistry and CAS Key Laboratory of Receptor Research, Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Chunhong JiangState Key Laboratory of Innovative Natural Medicine and TCM Injections, Ganzhou, China.
Hu ZhouDepartment of Analytical Chemistry and CAS Key Laboratory of Receptor Research, Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Yiping WangState Key Laboratory of Drug Research, Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · CNShanghai Institute of Materia Medica · CNShanghai Innovative Research Center of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Andrographolide sulfonate (Andro-S), a sulfonation derivative of andrographolide, is known to be effective in treating inflammation-related diseases, while the underlying mechanisms and global protein alterations in response to Andro-S remain unknown. This study aimed to investigate the pharmacological effects and potential targets of Andro-S in a murine model of acute lung injury (ALI). ALI was induced by aerosolized lipopolysaccharide (LPS) exposure before treatment with Andro-S. Inflammatory state of each treatment group was determined by histological analysis and quantification of inflammatory markers. Differentially expressed proteins in lung tissues were identified by an iTRAQ-based quantitative proteomic approach and further confirmed by immunohistochemistry analysis. Administration of Andro-S alleviated LPS-induced histological changes in the lung and reduced the expression of inflammatory markers in serum, bronchoalveolar fluid and lung tissues. Proteomic analysis identified 31 differentially expressed proteins from a total of 2,234 quantified proteins in the lung. According to bioinformatics analysis, neutrophil elastase (ELANE), cathepsin G (CTSG) and myeloperoxidase (MPO), three neutrophil-derived proteases related to immune system process and defense responses to fungi were chosen as potential targets of Andro-S. Further immunohistochemistry analysis confirmed the inhibitory effects of Andro-S on LPS-induced ELANE, CTSG and MPO up-regulation. These results indicate that Andro-S suppressed the severity of LPS-induced ALI, possibly by attenuating the expression of and neutrophil-derived proteases.

Indexed as

acute lung injuryandrographolide sulfonateimmunohistochemistryiTRAQquantitative proteomics

Identifiers

PMID30174607
PMCPMC6107831
OpenAlexW2886317793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.