ArticleChinese medicine2025
Feasibility of vinegar processing of toxic herbs in Shi-Zao-Tang: toxicity reduction, efficacy preservation in malignant ascites rats and underlying pharmacodynamic mechanisms.
Article in Chinese medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundShi-Zao-Tang (SZT), a classical formula of Traditional Chinese Medicine orally used for treating malignant ascites effusion (MAE), is made by mixing the powder of Kansui Radix (KR), Euphorbiae Pekinensis Radix (EPR) and fried Genkwa Flos with the decoction of Jujubae Fructus. According to Chinese Pharmacopoeia, vinegar-processed KR and EPR should be used in oral administration. However, toxicity and efficacy of SZT containing vinegar-processed KR and EPR (VSZT) versus SZT in MAE rats, and the potential mechanisms of VSZT against MAE, remain unknown. Here, we comparatively studied the quality, toxicity and efficacy of SZT and VSZT, and explored the potential mechanisms of VSZT against MAE.
methodsMain components in SZT and VSZT were quantified by liquid chromatographic coupled with triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry. The intestinal toxicity and efficacy of SZT and VSZT were comparatively investigated in MAE rats. Specially, intestinal toxicity was evaluated by intestinal barrier function, histopathology and oxidative damage. The efficacy was investigated by amount of ascites, indices in excretion, intestinal motility and inflammation. The potential mechanisms of VSZT treats MAE were explored through integration of metabolomics, 16S rRNA and Western blotting analysis.
resultsVSZT contains less 3-O-EZ and more ingenol than SZT. VSZT showed reduced intestinal toxicity than SZT in MAE rats. Both SZT and VSZT indiscriminately decreased the amount of ascites and ascitic inflammatory cytokines, promoted urination and defecation, increased fecal water content and intestinal motility. VSZT reversed endogenous metabolism and gut microbiota disorders, down-regulated colonic cAMP, PKA, p-CREB/CREB and AQP3, as well as mesenteric p-VEGFR2/VEGFR2, p-SRC/SRC, and p-VE-cadherin/ VE-cadherin in MAE rats.
conclusionVSZT preserved the efficacy of SZT on MAE with lower intestinal toxicity. VSZT increased water excretion and decreased MAE formation to alleviate MAE through regulating gut microbiota, restoring tryptophan and tyrosine metabolism disorders, and affecting cAMP-PKA-CREB-AQP3 and VEGFA-VEGFR2-SRC-VE-cadherine pathway.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.