• Journal of Ginseng Research
• /
• v.46 no.3
• /
• pp.418-425
• /
• 2022

Background: Sorafenib is effective in treating hepatoma, but most patients develop resistance to it. STAT3 signaling has been implicated in sorafenib resistance. Artesunate (ART) and 20(R)-ginsenoside Rg3 (Rg3) have anti-hepatoma effects and can inhibit STAT3 signaling in cancer cells. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of Rg3 in combination with ART (Rg3-plus-ART) in overcoming sorafenib resistance, and to examine the involvement of STAT3 signaling in these effects. Methods: Sorafenib-resistant HepG2 cells (HepG2-SR) were used to evaluate the in vitro anti-hepatoma effects of Rg3-plus-ART. A HepG2-SR hepatoma-bearing BALB/c-nu/nu mouse model was used to assess the in vivo anti-hepatoma effects of Rg3-plus-ART. CCK-8 assays and Annexin V-FITC/PI double staining were used to examine cell proliferation and apoptosis, respectively. Immunoblotting was employed to examine protein levels. ROS generation was examined by measuring DCF-DA fluorescence. Results: Rg3-plus-ART synergistically reduced viability of, and evoked apoptosis in HepG2-SR cells, and suppressed HepG2-SR tumor growth in mice. Mechanistic studies revealed that Rg3-plus-ART inhibited activation/phosphorylation of Src and STAT3 in HepG2-SR cultures and tumors. The combination also decreased the STAT3 nuclear level and induced ROS production in HepG2-SR cultures. Furthermore, overactivation of STAT3 or removal of ROS diminished the anti-proliferative effects of Rg3-plus-ART, and removal of ROS diminished Rg3-plus-ART's inhibitory effects on STAT3 activation in HepG2-SR cells. Conclusions: Rg3-plus-ART overcomes sorafenib resistance in experimental models, and inhibition of Src/STAT3 signaling and modulation of ROS/STAT3 signaling contribute to the underlying mechanisms. This study provides a pharmacological basis for developing Rg3-plus-ART into a novel modality for treating sorafenib-resistant hepatoma.

• Korean Journal of Poultry Science
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.51-62
• /
• 2010

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of dietary supplementation of multiple probiotics on the performance, small intestinal microflora and immune response in laying hens and broilers. In Exp.1, a total of 800, 82 wk old Hy-line Brown$^{(R)}$ laying hens were assigned to one of the following five dietary treatment; Control, Antibiotics (avilamycin 6 ppm), Probiotics; PB-M (Micro-ferm$^{(R)}$ 0.2%), PB-L (Lacto-sacc$^{(R)}$ 0.1%), PB-Y (Y University probiotics 0.2%). Each treatment was replicated eight times with 20 birds in each replicate and two birds were housed in each cage. Twenty birds units were arranged according to completely randomized block design. Feeding trial lasted 6 wk under 16 h lighting regimen. The Exp. 2, was conducted with a total of 1,000 broilers chicks (Ross$^{(R)}$). They were divided into five treatments, same as those of Exp. 1. Birds were fed starter (0~3 wk) and grower (4~5 wk) diets. Each treatment was replicated four times with 50 birds per pen comprising of deep litter. In Exp. 1, egg production parameters, such as hen-day and hen-house egg production, egg weight, broken and soft shell egg production, feed intake and feed conversion were not significantly different among treatments. However, strength and thickness of eggshell were significantly (P<0.05) different. Among the probiotics, PB-Y showed the highest strength and thickness of eggshell. Eggshell color, egg yolk color and Haugh unit were not significantly influenced. In Exp. 2, overall weight gain (0~5 wk) and mortality were not significantly different among treatments. However, weight gain of birds from PB-Y treatment during starter (0~3 wk) was significantly lower than the birds from Control and Antibiotic treatment. During the whole period (0~5 wk), birds from Antibiotics treatment had higher feed intake and Production Index (PI) and lower feed conversion than birds from Control treatment. Probiotics treatments were not significantly different from the Control on feed intake and feed conversion. In Exp.1, there were significant (P<0.05) differences in leukocytes parameters, such as white blood cell (WBC), hetrophil (HE), lymphocytes (LY), monocyte (MO), eosinophil (EO) and stress index (SI; HE/LY) in the blood of layers. Birds from Antibiotics and probiotics treatments tended to increase these parameters. In Exp. 2, however, only SI was significantly (P<0.05) decreased in Antibiotics treatments. Concentration of serum immunoglobulin (IgG) were higher (P<0.05) in PB-M and PB-Y treatments when compared with Control treatment in Exp. 1. The population of E. coli significantly (P<0.05) decreased in birds from Antibiotics, PB-L and PB-Y treatments when compared with birds from Control treatment in Exp. 1. Metalbolizability of crude fat decreased significantly (P<0.05) in birds from probiotic treatments in Exp. 2. It was concluded that the response of probiotics on the productivity of layers and broilers were different. Probiotics increased strength and thickness of eggshell in layers, and decreased feed conversion and increased PI in broilers. Leukocytes and IgG tended to increase by supplementation of antibiotics and probiotics in layers. Intestinal E. coli tended to decrease in layers. Digestibility of crude fat of diet decreased in probiotics treatments broilers. Parameters of blood and microbial were more sensitive in layers than broilers.

• Journal of Haehwa Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.513-545
• /
• 2000

I. Introduction Bi(痺) means blocking. It can reach at the joints or muscles or whole body and make pains. Numbness and movement disorders. BiJeung can be devided into SilBi and HeoBi. In SilBi there are PungHanSeupBi, YeolBi and WanBi. In HeoBi, there are GiHyeolHeoBi, EumHeoBi and YangHeoBi. The common principle for the treatment of BiJeung is devision of the chronic stage and the acute stage. In the acute stage, BiJeung is usually cured easily but in the chronic stage, it is difficult. In the terminal stage, BiJeung can reach at the internal organs. BiJeung is one kind of symptoms making muscles, bones and jonts feel pain, numbness or edema. For example it can be gout or SLE etc. Many famous doctors studied medical science by their fathers or teachers. So the history of medical science is long. So I studied ${\ll}Bijeungjujip{\gg}$. II. Final Decision 1. BanSuMun(斑秀文) thought that BiJeung can be cured by blocking of blood stream. So he insisted that the important thing to cure BiJeung is to improve the blood stream. He usually used DangGuiSaYeokTang(當歸四逆湯), DangGuiJakYakSanHapORyeongSan, DoHong-SaMulTang(桃紅四物湯), SaMyoSanHapHeuiDongTang and HwangGiGyeJiOMulTang. 2. JangGeonBu(張健夫) focused on soothing muscles and improving blood seam. So he used many herbs like WiRyeongSeon(威靈仙), GangHwal(羌活), DokHwal(獨活), WooSeul(牛膝), etc. Especially he pasted wastes of the boiled herbs. 3. OSeongNong(吳聖農) introduced four rules to treat arthritis. So he usually used SeoGak-SanGaGam(犀角散加減), BoYanHwanOTang(補陽還五湯), ODuTang(烏頭湯), HwangGiGyeJiOMulTang. 4. GongJiSin thought disk hernia as one kind of BiJeung. And he said that Pung can hurt upper limbs and Seup can hurt lower limbs. He used to use GyeJiJakYakJiMoTang(桂枝芍藥知母湯). 5. LoJiJeong(路志正) introduced four principles to treat BiJeung. He used BangPungTang(防風湯), DaeJinGuTang) for PungBi(風痺), OPaeTang(烏貝湯) for HanBi(寒痺), YukGunJaTang(六君子湯) for SeupBi(濕痺) and SaMyoTang(四妙湯), SeonBiTang(宣痺湯), BaekHoGaGyeTang(白虎加桂湯) for YeolBi(熱痺). 6. GangChunHwa(姜春華) discussed herbs. He said SaengJiHwang(生地黃) is effective for PungSeupBi and WiRyungSun(威靈仙) is effective for the joints pain. He usually used SipJeonDaeBoTang(十全大補湯), DangGuiDaeBoTang(當歸大補湯), YoukGunJaTang(六君子湯) and YukMiJiHwanTang(六味地黃湯). 7. DongGeonHwa(董建華) said that the most important thing to treat BiJeung is how to use herbs. He usually used CheonO(川烏), MaHwang(麻黃) for HanBi, SeoGak(犀角) for YeolBi, BiHae) or JamSa(蠶沙) for SeupBi, SukJiHwang(熟地黃) or Vertebrae of Pigs for improving the function of kidney and liver, deer horn or DuChung(杜沖) for improving strength of body and HwangGi(黃?) or OGaPi(五加皮) for improving the function of heart. 8. YiSuSan(李壽山) devided BiJeung into two types(PungHanSeupBi, PungYeolSeupBi). And he used GyeJiJakYakJiMoTang(桂枝芍藥知母湯) for the treatment of gout. And he liked to use HwanGiGyeJiOMulTangHapSinGiHwan 枝五物湯合腎氣丸) for the treat ment of WanBi(頑痺). 9. AnDukHyeong(顔德馨) made YongMaJeongTongDan(龍馬定痛丹)-(MaJeonJa(馬錢子) 30g, JiJaChung 3g, JiRyong(地龍) 3g, JeonGal(全蝎) 3g, JuSa(朱砂) 0.3g) 10. JangBaekYou(張伯臾) devided BiJeung into YeolBi and HanBi. And he focused on improving blood stream. 11. JinMuO(陳茂梧) introduced anti-wind and dampness prescription(HoJangGeun(虎杖根) 15g, CheonChoGeun 15g, SangGiSaeng(桑寄生) 15g, JamSa(蠶絲) 15g, JeMaJeonJa(制馬錢子) 3g). 12. YiChongBo(李總甫) explained basic prescriptions to treat BiJeung. He used SinJeongChuBiEum(新定推痺陰) for HaengBi(行痺), SinJeongHwaBiSan(新定化痺散) for TongBi(痛痺), SinJeongGaeBiTang(新定開痺湯) for ChakBi(着痺), SinJeongCheongBiEum(新定淸痺飮) for SeupYeolBi(濕熱痺), SinRyeokTang(腎瀝湯) for PoBi(胞痺), ORyeongSan for BuBi(腑痺), OBiTang(五痺湯) for JangBi(臟痺), SinChakTang(腎着湯) for SingChakByeong(腎着病). 13. HwangJeonGeuk(黃傳克) used SaMu1SaDeungHapJe(四物四藤合制) for the treatment of a acute arthritis, PalJinHpPalDeungTang(八珍合八藤湯) or BuGyeJiHwangTangHapTaDeungTang(附桂地黃湯合四藤湯) for the chronic stage and ByeolGapJeungAekTongRakEum(鱉甲增液通絡飮) for EumHeo(陰虛) 14. GaYeo(柯與參) used HwalRakJiTongTang(活絡止痛湯) for shoulder ache, SoJongJinTongHwalRakTank(消腫鎭痛活絡湯) for YeolBi(熱痺), LiGwanJeolTang(利關節湯) for ChakBi(着痺), SinBiTang(腎痺湯) for SinBi(腎痺) and SamGyoBoSinHwan(三膠補腎丸) for back ache. 15. JangGilJin(蔣길塵) liked to use hot-character herbs and insects. And he used SeoGeunLipAnTang(舒筋立安湯) as basic prescription. 16. RyuJangGeol(留章杰) used GuMiGangHwalTang(九味羌活湯) and BangPungTang(防風湯) at the acute stage, ODuTang(烏頭湯) or GyeJiJakYakJiMoTang(桂枝芍藥知母湯) for HanBi of internal organs, YangHwaHaeEungTang(陽和解凝湯) for HanBi, DokHwalGiSaengTang(獨活寄生湯), EuiYiInTang(薏苡仁湯) for SeupBi, YukGunJaTang(六君子湯) for GiHeoBi(氣虛痺) and SeongYouTang(聖兪湯) for HyeolHeoBi(血虛痺). 17. YangYuHak(楊有鶴) liked to use SoGyeongHwalHyelTang(疏經活血湯) and he would rather use DoIn(桃仁), HongHwa(紅花), DangGui(當歸), CheonGung(川芎) than insects. 18. SaHongDo(史鴻濤) made RyuPungSeupTang(類風濕湯)-((HwangGi 200g, JinGu 20g, BangGi(防己) 15g, HongHwa(紅花) 15g, DoIn(桃仁) 15g, CheongPungDeung(靑風藤) 20g, JiRyong(地龍) 15g, GyeJi(桂枝) 15g, WoSeul(牛膝) 15g, CheonSanGap(穿山甲) 15g, BaekJi(白芷) 15g, BaekSeonPi(白鮮皮) 15g, GamCho(甘草) 15g).

• Membrane Journal
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.235-252
• /
• 2022

Forward osmotic pressure-free reverse osmosis (Δ𝜋=0 RO) was invented in 2013. The first patent (US 9,950,297 B2) was registered on April 18, 2018. The "Osmotic Pressure of Concentrated Solutions" in JACS (1908) by G.N. Lewis of MIT was used for the estimation. The Chang's RO system differs from conventional RO (C-RO) in that two-chamber system of osmotic pressure equalizer and a low-pressure RO system while C-RO is based on a single chamber. Chang claimed that all aqueous solutions, including salt water, regardless of its osmotic pressure can be separated into water and salt. The second patent (US 10.953.367B2, March 23, 2021) showed that a low-pressure reverse osmosis is possible for 3.0% input at Δ𝜋 of 10 to 12 bar. Singularity ZERO reverse osmosis from his third patent (Korea patent 10-22322755, US-PCT/KR202003595) for a 3.0% NaCl input, 50% more water recovery, use of 1/3 RO membrane area, and 1/5th of theoretical energy. These numbers come from Chang's laboratory experiments and theoretical analysis. Relative residence time (RRT) of feed and OE chambers makes Δ𝜋 to zero or negative by recycling enriched feed flow. The construction cost by S-ZERO was estimated to be around 50~60% of the current RO system.