# Effect ofGlycyrrhiza on the Diuretic Function ofEuphorbia kansui: An Ascites Mouse Model

Authors: Ya Lin; Yanqiong Zhang; Erxin Shang; Wenfang Lai; Hongwei Zhu; Yuhua Fang; Qingxia Qin; Haiyu Zhao; Na Lin
Journal: Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
 (2016)

---

## Abstract

We investigated the therapeutic role of the herbal combinationEuphorbia kansui (GS) andGlycyrrhiza (GC) in ascites during hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The AVPR2 and AQP2 expression in kidney tissues of ascites mice in different groups was determined by immunohistochemistry, Western blot, and real-time PCR analyses. When the dose of GS was less than 0.70 g/kg at a ratio of GC : GS not exceeding 0.4 : 1, the combination of GS and GC exhibited synergistic effects on HCC ascites and significantly elevated the expression levels of AVPR2 and AQP2 (all P<0.05). On the contrary, when GS ≥ 0.93 g/kg and GC ≥ 1.03 g/kg with the GC-to-GS ratio exceeding 1.11 : 1, the combination of GS and GC displayed antagonistic effects on HCC ascites and dramatically reduced the expression levels of AVPR2 and AQP2 (all P<0.05). Furthermore, the administration of herbal pair GS and GC at different ratios did not exacerbate the pathological changes in liver and kidney tissues of HCC ascites mice. The different combinations of GS and GC exerted synergistic or antagonistic effects on HCC ascites, partially by regulating the expression of AVPR2 and AQP2.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

The root ofEuphorbia kansui T. N. Liou ex T. P. Wang (Gansui, GS), recorded in Shennong-Bencao, is a powerful diuretic and has been used for the treatment of ascites, edema, peritoneal effusion, and pericardial effusion [1–3]. Another Chinese herb,Glycyrrhiza (Licorice, Gancao, GC), as a unique “guide drug,” enhances the effectiveness of other herbs and has been used in almost half of all Chinese herbal formulas [4]. According to the Chinese medicinal studies, GS and GC represent a herbal pair in the so-called “eighteen antagonistic medicaments,” which implied that the two herbs were mutually incompatible and therefore should be avoided in prescription. However, GS and GC combination was prescribed in a classic traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulaGansui-Banxia-Tang, which has been used for the treatment of cancerous ascites [5, 6], implying that the two herbs exhibit synergistic or antagonistic effects under different combination designs.The uniform design (UD), proposed by Fang [7, 8], has been extensively used in Chinese medicine to determine the role of other related factors to determine the effective ratio and dosage, rapidly based on uniformly dispersed test points [9–11]. Compared with other known experimental-design techniques, the UD method is more suitable for test of multifactor and multiple levels. The major advantage of the UD method is helpful to reduce the number of trials, to prevent accidents, and to accelerate data analysis in modern statistics. Especially in the study of complex prescription of Chinese medicine, the application of UD can greatly reduce the number of tests, thereby making studies on prescription with complex Chinese medicine easier [12]. The UD results are often analyzed by stepwise regression using MATLAB software. It is a unique computing language and provides interactive environment for data visualization and optimization of data condition resulting in two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) visualization [12–14]. Accumulating evidence supports the use of UD integrated with MATLAB software to investigate the pharmacodynamic changes of drugs at different combinations.Since the combination principles of the herbal pair GC and GS have yet to be fully elucidated, we used a UD to screen the special dosages and ratios of GC and GS based on the therapeutic effects against ascites and hepatic and renal toxicity. Subsequently, the expression of AVPR2 and AQP2 in kidney tissues of ascites mice in different groups was detected by immunohistochemistry, Western blot, and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (real-time qPCR) analyses, respectively.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Chemicals

The chemicals used were furosemide tablets, Tianjin Lisheng Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (lot number 1201003), crushed and adjusted with distilled water to 23 mg/kg for preparation.


### 2.2. Plant Material

GS (lot number 121106) and GC (lot number 120713) were both purchased from Anhui Fengyuan Tongling Herbal Pieces Co. Ltd., identified by Professor Xiaotao Wang, a researcher from the Institute of Chinese Materia Medica, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences. The two drugs were dried roots ofEuphorbia kansui T. N. Liou ex T. P. Wang andGlycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch., respectively. HPLC-MS was used to determine the main chemical components of GS and GC. As shown in Figure 1 and Table 1, 11 and 36 chemical compounds were, respectively, identified in GS and GC.Table 1
Chemical components, respectively, identified in GS  and  GC by HPLC-MS.
Number
Components
Glycyrrhiza
1
Liquiritigenin
2
Nicotiflorin
3
Schaftoside
4
Genkwanin
5
Pinocembrin
6
Naringenin
7
Liquiritin apioside
8
7,4′-Dihydroxyflavone
9
7-Methoxy-4′-hydroxyflavone
10
Isoliquiritigenin
11
Calycosin
12
Licorice-saponin G2
13
Uralsaponin F
14
Glycyrrhizic acid
15
Licorice-saponin L3
16
22β-Acethylglbric acid
17
3-Oxo-glycyrrhetic acid
18
Glabrolide
19
Glyyunnansapogenin C
20
3-Acetyl glycyrrhetic acid
21
Meristotropic acid
22
Uralenolide
23
Glyeurysaponin
24
Licoflavone A
25
Glyyunnansapogenin G
26
Uralsaponin B
27
Uralsaponin A
28
Licorice-saponin J2
29
Topazolin
30
Glyasperin C
31
Gancaonin O
32
Glepidotin A
33
2′,7-Dihydroxy-4′-methoxy-3-arylcoumarin
34
Licoisoflavone B
35
Licoricidin
36
Glyasperin A
Euphorbia kansui
1
Kansuinin B
2
Kansuinin C
3
Kansuinin A
4
Kansuinin D
5
3-O-Benzoyl-5-O-acetyl-20-deoxyingenol(kansuiphorinD)
6
3-O-(2′E,4′Z-Decadienoyl)ingenol
7
3-O-(2′E,4′E-Decadienoyl)ingenol
8
3-O-(2′E,4′Z-Decadienoyl)-20-O-acetylingenol
9
3-O-(2′E,4′E-Decadienoyl)-20-O-acetylingenol
10
3-O-(2′E,4′Z-Decadienoyl)-20-deoxyingenol
11
3-O-(2,3-Dimethylbutanoyl)-13-O-dodecanoylingenolFigure 1
Main chemical components containing GS (a) and GC (b), respectively, determined by HPLC-MS.
(a)
(b)


### 2.3. Herbal Preparation

GC was decocted for mother solution at a dosage of 1.34 g/kg. Briefly, 20.1 g GC was soaked with 10-fold volume of water for 1 h, heated by electric heater, and decocted for 1.5 h. After standing and filtrating, the residue was decocted again with the same amount of water for 1 h. After standing and filtrating, the solution was combined, concentrated, and distilled at 60°C to a volume of 300 mL and stored at 4°C. GS was crushed by grinder and filtered by 80-mesh sifter and the powder was stored for further use. GS powder and GC decoction (mother solution) were mixed at different ratios by UD and heated before intragastric administration to different groups.


### 2.4. Animals

The experimental protocol was approved by Medical Experimental Animal Care Committee of Institute of Chinese Materia Medica, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences. Male ICR mice (6 weeks old, 18–22 g) were obtained from the Laboratory Animal Center of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences (Beijing, China) and were acclimatized for one week before the experiment. All mice were bred in laminar flow cabinets under specific pathogen-free conditions.


### 2.5. Ascites Mouse Model

A murine H22 HCC ascitic cell line was purchased from the Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). H22 cells were cultured in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine, 100 IU/mL penicillin, 100μg/mL streptomycin, and 10% FCS at 37°C under a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2, and the culture medium was changed every 2 or 3 days. A H22 HCC ascites model was prepared according to the previous studies [10]. In brief, the needle was inserted into the left lower abdomen, and H22 cells were inoculated intraperitoneally; each mouse was inoculated with approximately 1 × 107 H22 cells. The procedure was not associated with mortality or morbidity.


### 2.6. Identification of the Effective Dose Range of GS Based on Its Diuretic Function

One hundred and twenty male ICR mice were randomly divided into 11 groups: control group (Con,n=10), model group (Mod, n=9), furosemide group (Furo, 23 mg/kg, n=9) treated with furosemide 23 mg/kg, and eight GS treatment groups (GS-1–8, n=9 per group) with GS treatment dosages including 0.07, 0.14, 0.21, 0.42, 0.63, 0.84, 1.05, and 1.26 g/kg, respectively. The control and model groups received an equal volume of normal saline.


### 2.7. Investigation of Combination GS and GC Therapy Based on UD

According to the dosage ranges recorded inChina Pharmacopoeia (ChP, 2010 edition, volume I) and the results, the dosage ratio of GS and GC ranged between 0.21–1.26 and 0.27–1.34 g/kg, respectively [15]. UD tables were expressed as Un(ts), where U represents the UD, n stands for the number of experimental trials, andt and s denote the number of levels and the maximum number of factors, respectively [7, 8]. In the current study, the UD table U72(72) was used to arrange the experiments as shown in Table 2.Table 2
U72(72) groups with different proportions and doses of GS/GC.
Groups
Levels of factor
Doses of factor
GS
GC
GS (g/kg)
GC (g/kg)
1
1
5
0.21
0.79
2
2
2
0.28
0.35
3
3
7
0.38
1.34
4
4
4
0.51
0.6
5
5
1
0.69
0.27
6
6
6
0.93
1.03
7
7
3
1.26
0.46


### 2.8. Physical Examination and Serum Biochemical Analysis

All mice were weighed and the abdominal circumference was measured. To measure the ascites volume, ascites fluid was aspirated via syringe from the opened abdominal wall following cervical dislocation. Serum biochemical analyses included alanine aminotransferase (ALT, related to liver), aspartate aminotransferase (AST, related to liver), creatinine (CREA, related to kidney), and blood urea nitrogen (BUN, related to kidney) and were determined using routine kinetic and fixed rate colorimetric methods. All assays were conducted in triplicate using fresh serum.


### 2.9. ELISA

The ascites and blood samples were collected and centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 15 min at 4°C, respectively. The ascites and sera were diluted to different concentrations and analyzed using the mouse AVPR2 and AQP2 ELISA kits, obtained from Beijing Xinfang Cheng Biotechnology (Beijing, China) following the manufacturer’s instructions.


### 2.10. Immunohistochemistry

Renal tissue sections of 4μm thickness were layered on polylysine-coated slides. The paraffin sections were dewaxed using a routine method and incubated for 10 min with 3% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Each section was incubated with blocking serum (Vectastain ABC Kit, Vector Laboratories Ltd., Burlingame, CA, USA) at room temperature for 30 min followed by incubation overnight at 4°C with primary rabbit anti-aquaporin-2 antibody (dilution 1/600, lot number GR107654-2, Abcam, Cambridge, UK). A primary rabbit AVPR V2 antibody (dilution 1/300, lot number GR146393-1, Abcam, Cambridge, UK) was also used for incubation overnight. Sections incubated in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) without antibody served as negative controls. After incubation with biotinylated secondary antibody, sections were incubated with an avidin-biotin complex reagent containing horseradish peroxidase for 30 min. The sections were then stained with 3,3′-diaminobenzidine (DAB) (Sigma, Louis, MO, USA) [16]. Image-Pro Plus 6.0 System image analysis system was used for quantitative analysis.


### 2.11. Western Blot Analysis

Kidney was resuspended in lysis buffer (50 mM Tris, pH 8.0, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, 0.1% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), and 0.5% NP-40) containing 10 mM phenylmethyl-sulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) and 2 mg/mL aprotinin. The protein extract was used to analyze the renal expression of AVPR2 and AQP2. Western blot was performed as described in our previous studies [17, 18]. Primary antibodies against AVPR2 (dilution 1/800, lot number GR146393-1, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), AQP2 (dilution 1/800, lot number GR107654-2, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), and β-actin (dilution 1/600, lot number #I10813, Beijing TransGen Biotech Co. Ltd., Beijing, China) were used. All experiments were conducted in triplicate. Mean normalized protein expression ± SE was calculated from independent experiments. The relative quantity of each antibody was measured by Alpha Ease FC (Fluorchem FC2) software.


### 2.12. Real-Time qPCR

Total RNA in kidney tissues of different groups was extracted with RNeasy Plus Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The total RNA (2μg) was reverse-transcribed to cDNA using the Revert Aid First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Thermo Scientific, USA) according to the manufacturer’s manual. The specific transcripts were quantified by quantitative real-time PCR using a SYBR Select Master Mix (lot: 1407019, Life Technologies, USA) and analyzed with an ABI 7900HT Fast Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, USA). GAPDH was used as an internal control for normalization and quantification of target gene expression. The primer sequences of AVPR2 and AQP2 mRNAs (Shanghai Generay Biotech Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China) are listed in Table 3. The relative quantification of target gene expression was evaluated using the comparative cycle threshold (CT) method as described previously [19]. All experiments were performed in triplicate. The relative mRNA expression was calculated with the comparative CT method and the mean normalized gene expression ± SE was calculated from independent experiments.Table 3
Target genes detected by real-time qPCR and their primers.
Primer sequences
AVPR2
Forward:  5′-AGGATGACACTGGTGATTGTGATTG-3′
Reverse:  5′-TCCGAGGAGACACTGCTACTGAA-3′
AQP2
Forward:  5′-CCCAGAGGAAGAGAGAAGAGAAAGA-3′
Reverse:  5′-AAGGCCAAAGAAGACGAAAAGGA-3′
GAPDH
Forward:  5′-TGATGACATCAAGAAGGTGGTGAAG-3′
Reverse:  5′-TCCTTGGAGGCCATGTGGGCCAT-3′


### 2.13. Statistical Analysis

The software SPSS version 21.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and MATLAB version 7.8 (Math Works Inc., Massachusetts, USA) were used for statistical analyses. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). All data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by least significant difference (LSD) or the Dunnett T3 test. Differences were considered statistically significant when theP value was less than 0.05. MATLAB 7.8 was used to determine the optimal dosage ratios of GS and GC by UD.


## 2.1. Chemicals

The chemicals used were furosemide tablets, Tianjin Lisheng Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (lot number 1201003), crushed and adjusted with distilled water to 23 mg/kg for preparation.


## 2.2. Plant Material

GS (lot number 121106) and GC (lot number 120713) were both purchased from Anhui Fengyuan Tongling Herbal Pieces Co. Ltd., identified by Professor Xiaotao Wang, a researcher from the Institute of Chinese Materia Medica, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences. The two drugs were dried roots ofEuphorbia kansui T. N. Liou ex T. P. Wang andGlycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch., respectively. HPLC-MS was used to determine the main chemical components of GS and GC. As shown in Figure 1 and Table 1, 11 and 36 chemical compounds were, respectively, identified in GS and GC.Table 1
Chemical components, respectively, identified in GS  and  GC by HPLC-MS.
Number
Components
Glycyrrhiza
1
Liquiritigenin
2
Nicotiflorin
3
Schaftoside
4
Genkwanin
5
Pinocembrin
6
Naringenin
7
Liquiritin apioside
8
7,4′-Dihydroxyflavone
9
7-Methoxy-4′-hydroxyflavone
10
Isoliquiritigenin
11
Calycosin
12
Licorice-saponin G2
13
Uralsaponin F
14
Glycyrrhizic acid
15
Licorice-saponin L3
16
22β-Acethylglbric acid
17
3-Oxo-glycyrrhetic acid
18
Glabrolide
19
Glyyunnansapogenin C
20
3-Acetyl glycyrrhetic acid
21
Meristotropic acid
22
Uralenolide
23
Glyeurysaponin
24
Licoflavone A
25
Glyyunnansapogenin G
26
Uralsaponin B
27
Uralsaponin A
28
Licorice-saponin J2
29
Topazolin
30
Glyasperin C
31
Gancaonin O
32
Glepidotin A
33
2′,7-Dihydroxy-4′-methoxy-3-arylcoumarin
34
Licoisoflavone B
35
Licoricidin
36
Glyasperin A
Euphorbia kansui
1
Kansuinin B
2
Kansuinin C
3
Kansuinin A
4
Kansuinin D
5
3-O-Benzoyl-5-O-acetyl-20-deoxyingenol(kansuiphorinD)
6
3-O-(2′E,4′Z-Decadienoyl)ingenol
7
3-O-(2′E,4′E-Decadienoyl)ingenol
8
3-O-(2′E,4′Z-Decadienoyl)-20-O-acetylingenol
9
3-O-(2′E,4′E-Decadienoyl)-20-O-acetylingenol
10
3-O-(2′E,4′Z-Decadienoyl)-20-deoxyingenol
11
3-O-(2,3-Dimethylbutanoyl)-13-O-dodecanoylingenolFigure 1
Main chemical components containing GS (a) and GC (b), respectively, determined by HPLC-MS.
(a)
(b)


## 2.3. Herbal Preparation

GC was decocted for mother solution at a dosage of 1.34 g/kg. Briefly, 20.1 g GC was soaked with 10-fold volume of water for 1 h, heated by electric heater, and decocted for 1.5 h. After standing and filtrating, the residue was decocted again with the same amount of water for 1 h. After standing and filtrating, the solution was combined, concentrated, and distilled at 60°C to a volume of 300 mL and stored at 4°C. GS was crushed by grinder and filtered by 80-mesh sifter and the powder was stored for further use. GS powder and GC decoction (mother solution) were mixed at different ratios by UD and heated before intragastric administration to different groups.


## 2.4. Animals

The experimental protocol was approved by Medical Experimental Animal Care Committee of Institute of Chinese Materia Medica, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences. Male ICR mice (6 weeks old, 18–22 g) were obtained from the Laboratory Animal Center of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences (Beijing, China) and were acclimatized for one week before the experiment. All mice were bred in laminar flow cabinets under specific pathogen-free conditions.


## 2.5. Ascites Mouse Model

A murine H22 HCC ascitic cell line was purchased from the Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China). H22 cells were cultured in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine, 100 IU/mL penicillin, 100μg/mL streptomycin, and 10% FCS at 37°C under a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2, and the culture medium was changed every 2 or 3 days. A H22 HCC ascites model was prepared according to the previous studies [10]. In brief, the needle was inserted into the left lower abdomen, and H22 cells were inoculated intraperitoneally; each mouse was inoculated with approximately 1 × 107 H22 cells. The procedure was not associated with mortality or morbidity.


## 2.6. Identification of the Effective Dose Range of GS Based on Its Diuretic Function

One hundred and twenty male ICR mice were randomly divided into 11 groups: control group (Con,n=10), model group (Mod, n=9), furosemide group (Furo, 23 mg/kg, n=9) treated with furosemide 23 mg/kg, and eight GS treatment groups (GS-1–8, n=9 per group) with GS treatment dosages including 0.07, 0.14, 0.21, 0.42, 0.63, 0.84, 1.05, and 1.26 g/kg, respectively. The control and model groups received an equal volume of normal saline.


## 2.7. Investigation of Combination GS and GC Therapy Based on UD

According to the dosage ranges recorded inChina Pharmacopoeia (ChP, 2010 edition, volume I) and the results, the dosage ratio of GS and GC ranged between 0.21–1.26 and 0.27–1.34 g/kg, respectively [15]. UD tables were expressed as Un(ts), where U represents the UD, n stands for the number of experimental trials, andt and s denote the number of levels and the maximum number of factors, respectively [7, 8]. In the current study, the UD table U72(72) was used to arrange the experiments as shown in Table 2.Table 2
U72(72) groups with different proportions and doses of GS/GC.
Groups
Levels of factor
Doses of factor
GS
GC
GS (g/kg)
GC (g/kg)
1
1
5
0.21
0.79
2
2
2
0.28
0.35
3
3
7
0.38
1.34
4
4
4
0.51
0.6
5
5
1
0.69
0.27
6
6
6
0.93
1.03
7
7
3
1.26
0.46


## 2.8. Physical Examination and Serum Biochemical Analysis

All mice were weighed and the abdominal circumference was measured. To measure the ascites volume, ascites fluid was aspirated via syringe from the opened abdominal wall following cervical dislocation. Serum biochemical analyses included alanine aminotransferase (ALT, related to liver), aspartate aminotransferase (AST, related to liver), creatinine (CREA, related to kidney), and blood urea nitrogen (BUN, related to kidney) and were determined using routine kinetic and fixed rate colorimetric methods. All assays were conducted in triplicate using fresh serum.


## 2.9. ELISA

The ascites and blood samples were collected and centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 15 min at 4°C, respectively. The ascites and sera were diluted to different concentrations and analyzed using the mouse AVPR2 and AQP2 ELISA kits, obtained from Beijing Xinfang Cheng Biotechnology (Beijing, China) following the manufacturer’s instructions.


## 2.10. Immunohistochemistry

Renal tissue sections of 4μm thickness were layered on polylysine-coated slides. The paraffin sections were dewaxed using a routine method and incubated for 10 min with 3% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Each section was incubated with blocking serum (Vectastain ABC Kit, Vector Laboratories Ltd., Burlingame, CA, USA) at room temperature for 30 min followed by incubation overnight at 4°C with primary rabbit anti-aquaporin-2 antibody (dilution 1/600, lot number GR107654-2, Abcam, Cambridge, UK). A primary rabbit AVPR V2 antibody (dilution 1/300, lot number GR146393-1, Abcam, Cambridge, UK) was also used for incubation overnight. Sections incubated in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) without antibody served as negative controls. After incubation with biotinylated secondary antibody, sections were incubated with an avidin-biotin complex reagent containing horseradish peroxidase for 30 min. The sections were then stained with 3,3′-diaminobenzidine (DAB) (Sigma, Louis, MO, USA) [16]. Image-Pro Plus 6.0 System image analysis system was used for quantitative analysis.


## 2.11. Western Blot Analysis

Kidney was resuspended in lysis buffer (50 mM Tris, pH 8.0, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, 0.1% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), and 0.5% NP-40) containing 10 mM phenylmethyl-sulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) and 2 mg/mL aprotinin. The protein extract was used to analyze the renal expression of AVPR2 and AQP2. Western blot was performed as described in our previous studies [17, 18]. Primary antibodies against AVPR2 (dilution 1/800, lot number GR146393-1, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), AQP2 (dilution 1/800, lot number GR107654-2, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), and β-actin (dilution 1/600, lot number #I10813, Beijing TransGen Biotech Co. Ltd., Beijing, China) were used. All experiments were conducted in triplicate. Mean normalized protein expression ± SE was calculated from independent experiments. The relative quantity of each antibody was measured by Alpha Ease FC (Fluorchem FC2) software.


## 2.12. Real-Time qPCR

Total RNA in kidney tissues of different groups was extracted with RNeasy Plus Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The total RNA (2μg) was reverse-transcribed to cDNA using the Revert Aid First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Thermo Scientific, USA) according to the manufacturer’s manual. The specific transcripts were quantified by quantitative real-time PCR using a SYBR Select Master Mix (lot: 1407019, Life Technologies, USA) and analyzed with an ABI 7900HT Fast Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, USA). GAPDH was used as an internal control for normalization and quantification of target gene expression. The primer sequences of AVPR2 and AQP2 mRNAs (Shanghai Generay Biotech Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China) are listed in Table 3. The relative quantification of target gene expression was evaluated using the comparative cycle threshold (CT) method as described previously [19]. All experiments were performed in triplicate. The relative mRNA expression was calculated with the comparative CT method and the mean normalized gene expression ± SE was calculated from independent experiments.Table 3
Target genes detected by real-time qPCR and their primers.
Primer sequences
AVPR2
Forward:  5′-AGGATGACACTGGTGATTGTGATTG-3′
Reverse:  5′-TCCGAGGAGACACTGCTACTGAA-3′
AQP2
Forward:  5′-CCCAGAGGAAGAGAGAAGAGAAAGA-3′
Reverse:  5′-AAGGCCAAAGAAGACGAAAAGGA-3′
GAPDH
Forward:  5′-TGATGACATCAAGAAGGTGGTGAAG-3′
Reverse:  5′-TCCTTGGAGGCCATGTGGGCCAT-3′


## 2.13. Statistical Analysis

The software SPSS version 21.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and MATLAB version 7.8 (Math Works Inc., Massachusetts, USA) were used for statistical analyses. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). All data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by least significant difference (LSD) or the Dunnett T3 test. Differences were considered statistically significant when theP value was less than 0.05. MATLAB 7.8 was used to determine the optimal dosage ratios of GS and GC by UD.


## 3. Results and Discussion

### 3.1. Effective Dose Range of GS Based on Diuretic Function

Malignant ascites is an abnormal accumulation of fluid in the peritoneal cavity as a consequence of cancer, which is very common in ovarian, endometrial, breast, colon, gastric, liver, and pancreatic carcinomas, particularly in the advanced stages. Intractable malignant ascites usually have poor prognosis with a life expectancy ranging from 1 to 4 months [20, 21]. Although various alternative therapies, including diuretic medicine, have been employed, the evidence regarding their effects on malignant ascites has yet to be fully elucidated [22, 23]. GS and GC, the well-known traditional Chinese medicines, have been widely used and proved as effective herbal medicines against malignant ascites in Chinese clinical practice [5, 24]. We firstly explored the effective dose range of GS against malignant ascites by using the H22-induced malignant ascites mouse model. This model has been proved to be suitable model to study ascites treatment, which possesses more similar physiological features compared with other models established from genetic defects or chemical-induced disease [23, 25]. As shown in Figure 2, the body weight and abdominal circumference were both significantly increased in the ascites mice compared with the normal controls, suggesting successful modeling. In addition, treatment with 23 mg/kg furosemide and 0.42, 0.63, and 1.26 g/kg GS effectively reduced the body weight of the ascites mice (all P<0.05, Figure 2(a)). The ascites volume and abdominal circumference were also decreased in the ascites mice following treatment with 23 mg/kg furosemide and 0.21~1.26 g/kg GS (all P<0.05, Figures 2(b) and 2(c), resp.). Similarly, the ascites volume/body weight was dramatically reduced by the treatment of 23 mg/kg furosemide or 1.26 g/kg GS (both P<0.01, Figure 2(d)). These findings showed that the effective dose range of GS based on its diuretic function was 0.21~1.26 g/kg, which was used in further UD experiments.Figure 2
Changes in body weight (a), ascites volume (b), abdominal circumference (c), and ascites volume/body weight (d) in H22 HCC ascites model and other treatment groups. Data are represented as mean ± SE.P##<0.01, compared with the control group. P∗<0.05, compared with the model group; P∗∗<0.01, compared with the model group.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)


### 3.2. Combination of Herbal Pair GS and GC Based on UD

GS is a powerful diuretic herb, which is commonly used for the treatment of oedema and ascites. However, GS is also a toxic herbal medicine, which is barely administered alone. In Chinese clinical practice, GS is usually used concomitantly with GC for toxicity reduction. Currently, UD is widely used as a valuable method in the compatibility research of Chinese medicine drugs’ composition. To assemble a new compound recipe reasonably according to the prescription of traditional compound recipe could make its effect equivalent to that of the original prescription [26]. Thus, we determined the effective ratio and dosage of GS-GC herb pair by using UD method in the current study. Data of seven UD groups were analyzed by stepwise multiple regression analysis using MATLAB 7.8 software. The results (as shown in Table 4 and Figures 3 and 4) showed the significant changes into the ascites volume and ascites volume/body weight among various groups, but the trends of the body weight and abdominal circumference did not fit the regression equation.Table 4
Effects of GS/GC combinations with different proportions and doses as shown in Table2 in the treatment of malignant ascites (mean ± SE).
Group
n
Body weight (g)
Ascites volume (mL)
Abdominal circumference (cm)
Ascites volume/body weight (mL/g)
M
6
36.18 ± 2.82
11.81 ± 1.08
11.37 ± 0.37
0.33 ± 0.02
G-C1
6
34.78 ± 1.55
10.25 ± 2.27
11.32 ± 0.45
0.30 ± 0.07
G-C2
6
34.07 ± 1.61
9.63 ± 2.09∗
11.50 ± 0.64
0.28 ± 0.05
G-C3
5
33.05 ± 1.98
11.38 ± 1.67
11.25 ± 0.22
0.34 ± 0.04
G-C4
5
34.58 ± 2.24
11.02 ± 0.91
10.70 ± 0.91
0.32 ± 0.01
G-C5
6
33.67 ± 3.00
7.38 ± 1.31∗∗
10.40 ± 0.62∗∗
0.22 ± 0.03∗∗
G-C6
5
34.96 ± 2.95
13.40 ± 1.08∗
10.92 ± 0.51
0.38 ± 0.03∗∗
G-C7
6
29.50 ± 3.70∗∗
8.17 ± 1.57∗∗
10.22 ± 0.45∗∗
0.26 ± 0.05∗∗
P∗<0.05, P∗∗<0.01 compared with the model group at the same time point.Figure 3
Effect of GS and GC on ascites volume of H22 HCC ascites mice: a three-dimensional visualization of stepwise regressive equation of ascites volume (a) and correlation analysis of GS and GC combinations at different ratios and dosages (b, c, and d).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)Figure 4
Effect of GS and GC on the ascites volume of H22 HCC ascites mice: a 3D visualization of stepwise regressive equation of ascites volume/body weight (a) and correlation analysis of the combination of GS and GC at different ratios and dosages (b, c, and d).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)The doses of GS and GC were, respectively, defined as independent variablesX1 and X2, while ascites volume was defined as a dependent variable Y1. Ascites volume was defined by the stepwise equation, Y1=6.331∗X12∗X2-4.16∗X12-0.1637/X22+10.94 (r=0.9845, P=0.0091), displayed in Figure 3(a). Ascites volume/body weight of mice was defined as a dependent variable Y2 using the multivariate stepwise regression equation Y2=0.06416∗X1∗X22-0.006046/X22+0.3062 (r=0.9479, P=0.0103) as shown in Figure 4(a). The regression analysis yielded the following results: at a dose of GS < 0.70 g/kg with GC : GS ≤ 0.4 : 1, the combination of GS and GC reduced the ascites volume in H22 HCC ascites mice; at a GS dose exceeding 0.70 g/kg but less than 0.93 g/kg combined with GC < 1.03 g/kg, GC had no obvious impact on the diuretic function of GS. When GS ≥ 0.93 g/kg was combined with GC ≥ 1.03 g/kg and GC : GS ≥ 1.11 : 1, GC exerted an antagonistic effect to GS, as illustrated in Figures 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d). These findings based on stepwise multiple regression analysis were consistent with experimental validation as shown in Figure 5 and represented the GS/GC-antagonism group [G/C-a, ratio of GS and GC was 1/1.11 (0.93 g/kg : 1.03 g/kg, n=8)] and the GS/GC-synergy group [G/C-s, ratio of GS and GC was 1/0.39 (0.69 g/kg : 0.27 g/kg, n=8)].Figure 5
Changes in body weight (a), ascites volume (b), abdominal circumference (c), and ascites volume/body weight (d) in H22 HCC ascites model group (Mod,n=9), GS/GC combination-antagonism group (G/C-a, GS : GC = 0.93 g/kg : 1.03 g/kg, n=8), GS/GC combination-synergistic effect group (G/C-s, GS : GC = 0.69 g/kg : 0.27 g/kg, n=8),Euphorbia kansui treatment groups [GS-1 (GS = 0.93 g/kg, n=9), GS-2 (GS = 0.69 g/kg, n=8)], and furosemide treatment group (Furo, 23 mg/kg, n=8). Data are represented as mean ± SE. P##<0.01, compared with the control group. P∗<0.05, compared with the model group; P∗∗<0.01, compared with the model group.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)


### 3.3. Liver and Kidney Toxicity of GS/GC Combinations in HCC Ascites Mice

The clinical use of GS is seriously restricted due to strong hepatic and renal toxicity. In TCM theory, GC has been used to reduce drug toxicity. Therefore, we sought to observe the toxicity levels of different GS/GC combinations on H22 ascites mice. As shown in Figure6(a), the serum AST and ALT levels were related to liver metabolism and were increased slightly in the model and various drug treatment groups compared with the control group. Furthermore, we observed that part of the cytoplasm was degenerated, with a few condensed nuclei, in the liver sections. No obvious differences were found between the various drug treatment groups and the model group (Figure 6(b)). Regarding renal toxicity, we found that the serum BUN and CREA levels were not altered significantly in any treatment groups (Figure 7(a)). Furthermore, no specific pathological changes were found in different groups. Most of the kidney cells maintained normal structure, without any degeneration or necrosis of the glomerulus or renal tubules induced by toxicants and immunological factors (Figure 7(b)). These findings suggested that the administration of GS and GC at different combination ratios did not aggravate hepatic or renal pathological changes in HCC ascites mice.Figure 6
Liver toxicity in H22 HCC ascites mice (a). Increases in ALT and AST were observed after modeling, without any significant difference between the treatment groups. (b) Evaluation of liver sections stained with H&E revealed no significant pathological features such as inflammation or necrosis in any groups, but hepatic cells turned partially fatty along with liquidation, regression, or disappearance of cytoplasm. Hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) staining, 400x magnification.P##<0.01, compared with the control group.
(a)
(b)Figure 7
Renal toxicity in H22 HCC ascites mice (a). Serum levels of BUN and CREA were not altered significantly in any treatment groups. (b) No specific pathological symptoms were detected in different groups. Most kidney cells retained normal structure, without any degeneration or necrosis and edema or swelling of glomerulus and renal tubules. Hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) staining, 400x magnification.
(a)
(b)


### 3.4. GS and GC Regulate AVPR2 and AQP2 Expression

The data obtained from immunohistochemistry, ELISA, Western blot, and real-time qPCR analyses showed that the combinations of GS and GC could effectively regulate the expression of AVPR2 and AQP2, in ascites, sera, and renal tissues. The humanAVPR2 (arginine vasopressin receptor 2) gene, located on chromosome Xq28, belongs to the seven-transmembrane-domain G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily, which is localized to the basolateral side of the principal cell of the renal collecting duct [27]. The primary function of AVPR2 is to respond to the pituitary hormone arginine vasopressin (AVP) by stimulating mechanisms that concentrate the urine and maintain water homeostasis in the organism [28]. The antidiuretic effect of arginine vasopressin (AVP) is mediated predominantly by the binding of AVP to AVPR2, leading to receptor activation and interaction of AVPR2 with the cytosolic G protein, GαS, and subsequent activation of adenylate cyclase. Subsequently, the elevated cAMP levels trigger a cascade of intracellular events, including protein kinase A (PKA) activation and translocation of vesicles containing the water channel aquaporin-2 (AQP2) from the intracellular storage compartments to the apical surface of the principal cells [29]. More interestingly, AVPR2 has been recognized as a therapeutic target for the treatment of malignant ascites. Growing evidence indicates that several AVPR2 antagonists, such as satavaptan, tolvaptan, and lixivaptan, improve the control of ascites in cirrhosis [30–32]. In addition, the humanAQP2 gene, mapped to chromosome 12q12.13, encodes AQP2, a vasopressin-regulated water channel, which controls the permeability of renal collecting ducts to water and plays a pivotal role in maintaining body water balance [33]. The channel is regulated by the peptide hormone AVP, which exerts its effects via AVPR2. AQP2 expression is associated with short-term plasma membrane vesicle-mediated changes. However, long-termAQP2 gene expression alters fluid reabsorption from urine in the kidneys [34]. The mutations of AVPR2 and AQP2 genes are recognized by authorities as the important causes of some kidney diseases, such as nephrogenic diabetes insipidus [35, 36]. Growing evidence shows that the dysregulation of AVPR2 and AQP2 axis might result in the disruption of water homeostasis.In the current study, the expression of AVPR2 and AQP2 in the ascites, sera, and kidney tissues obtained from the GS-1/2 and GS/GC-synergy groups was significantly lower than those in the model control group (allP<0.05, Figures 8 and 9), indicating a diuretic role of the two drug combinations. These results also confirmed that the combination of GS and GC at a ratio of 1 : 0.39 exhibits synergistic effects on malignant ascites. However, the levels of AVPR2 and AQP2 in the ascites, sera (Figures 8(a) and 9(a)), and kidney tissues (Figures 8(b), 8(c), 8(d), 9(b), 9(c), and 9(d)) of the GS/GC-antagonism group showed no significant changes compared with those in the model control group, suggesting that the combination of GS and GC at a ratio of 1 : 1.11 exhibits antagonistic effects on malignant ascites.Figure 8
Effects of GS and GC on AVPR2 expression in serum and ascites assessed by ELISA (a), quantitative immunohistochemistry (b), Western blot (c), and real-time PCR (d). Data are represented as mean ± SE.P∗,∗∗<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively, compared with the model group; P##<0.01, compared with the control group.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)Figure 9
Quantification of the effects of GS and GC on AQP2 expression in serum and ascites using ELISA (a), quantitative immunohistochemistry (b), Western blot of protein (c), and real-time qPCR of mRNA (d). Data are represented as mean ± SE.P∗,∗∗<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively, compared with the model group; P#,##<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively, compared with the control group.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)


## 3.1. Effective Dose Range of GS Based on Diuretic Function

Malignant ascites is an abnormal accumulation of fluid in the peritoneal cavity as a consequence of cancer, which is very common in ovarian, endometrial, breast, colon, gastric, liver, and pancreatic carcinomas, particularly in the advanced stages. Intractable malignant ascites usually have poor prognosis with a life expectancy ranging from 1 to 4 months [20, 21]. Although various alternative therapies, including diuretic medicine, have been employed, the evidence regarding their effects on malignant ascites has yet to be fully elucidated [22, 23]. GS and GC, the well-known traditional Chinese medicines, have been widely used and proved as effective herbal medicines against malignant ascites in Chinese clinical practice [5, 24]. We firstly explored the effective dose range of GS against malignant ascites by using the H22-induced malignant ascites mouse model. This model has been proved to be suitable model to study ascites treatment, which possesses more similar physiological features compared with other models established from genetic defects or chemical-induced disease [23, 25]. As shown in Figure 2, the body weight and abdominal circumference were both significantly increased in the ascites mice compared with the normal controls, suggesting successful modeling. In addition, treatment with 23 mg/kg furosemide and 0.42, 0.63, and 1.26 g/kg GS effectively reduced the body weight of the ascites mice (all P<0.05, Figure 2(a)). The ascites volume and abdominal circumference were also decreased in the ascites mice following treatment with 23 mg/kg furosemide and 0.21~1.26 g/kg GS (all P<0.05, Figures 2(b) and 2(c), resp.). Similarly, the ascites volume/body weight was dramatically reduced by the treatment of 23 mg/kg furosemide or 1.26 g/kg GS (both P<0.01, Figure 2(d)). These findings showed that the effective dose range of GS based on its diuretic function was 0.21~1.26 g/kg, which was used in further UD experiments.Figure 2
Changes in body weight (a), ascites volume (b), abdominal circumference (c), and ascites volume/body weight (d) in H22 HCC ascites model and other treatment groups. Data are represented as mean ± SE.P##<0.01, compared with the control group. P∗<0.05, compared with the model group; P∗∗<0.01, compared with the model group.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)


## 3.2. Combination of Herbal Pair GS and GC Based on UD

GS is a powerful diuretic herb, which is commonly used for the treatment of oedema and ascites. However, GS is also a toxic herbal medicine, which is barely administered alone. In Chinese clinical practice, GS is usually used concomitantly with GC for toxicity reduction. Currently, UD is widely used as a valuable method in the compatibility research of Chinese medicine drugs’ composition. To assemble a new compound recipe reasonably according to the prescription of traditional compound recipe could make its effect equivalent to that of the original prescription [26]. Thus, we determined the effective ratio and dosage of GS-GC herb pair by using UD method in the current study. Data of seven UD groups were analyzed by stepwise multiple regression analysis using MATLAB 7.8 software. The results (as shown in Table 4 and Figures 3 and 4) showed the significant changes into the ascites volume and ascites volume/body weight among various groups, but the trends of the body weight and abdominal circumference did not fit the regression equation.Table 4
Effects of GS/GC combinations with different proportions and doses as shown in Table2 in the treatment of malignant ascites (mean ± SE).
Group
n
Body weight (g)
Ascites volume (mL)
Abdominal circumference (cm)
Ascites volume/body weight (mL/g)
M
6
36.18 ± 2.82
11.81 ± 1.08
11.37 ± 0.37
0.33 ± 0.02
G-C1
6
34.78 ± 1.55
10.25 ± 2.27
11.32 ± 0.45
0.30 ± 0.07
G-C2
6
34.07 ± 1.61
9.63 ± 2.09∗
11.50 ± 0.64
0.28 ± 0.05
G-C3
5
33.05 ± 1.98
11.38 ± 1.67
11.25 ± 0.22
0.34 ± 0.04
G-C4
5
34.58 ± 2.24
11.02 ± 0.91
10.70 ± 0.91
0.32 ± 0.01
G-C5
6
33.67 ± 3.00
7.38 ± 1.31∗∗
10.40 ± 0.62∗∗
0.22 ± 0.03∗∗
G-C6
5
34.96 ± 2.95
13.40 ± 1.08∗
10.92 ± 0.51
0.38 ± 0.03∗∗
G-C7
6
29.50 ± 3.70∗∗
8.17 ± 1.57∗∗
10.22 ± 0.45∗∗
0.26 ± 0.05∗∗
P∗<0.05, P∗∗<0.01 compared with the model group at the same time point.Figure 3
Effect of GS and GC on ascites volume of H22 HCC ascites mice: a three-dimensional visualization of stepwise regressive equation of ascites volume (a) and correlation analysis of GS and GC combinations at different ratios and dosages (b, c, and d).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)Figure 4
Effect of GS and GC on the ascites volume of H22 HCC ascites mice: a 3D visualization of stepwise regressive equation of ascites volume/body weight (a) and correlation analysis of the combination of GS and GC at different ratios and dosages (b, c, and d).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)The doses of GS and GC were, respectively, defined as independent variablesX1 and X2, while ascites volume was defined as a dependent variable Y1. Ascites volume was defined by the stepwise equation, Y1=6.331∗X12∗X2-4.16∗X12-0.1637/X22+10.94 (r=0.9845, P=0.0091), displayed in Figure 3(a). Ascites volume/body weight of mice was defined as a dependent variable Y2 using the multivariate stepwise regression equation Y2=0.06416∗X1∗X22-0.006046/X22+0.3062 (r=0.9479, P=0.0103) as shown in Figure 4(a). The regression analysis yielded the following results: at a dose of GS < 0.70 g/kg with GC : GS ≤ 0.4 : 1, the combination of GS and GC reduced the ascites volume in H22 HCC ascites mice; at a GS dose exceeding 0.70 g/kg but less than 0.93 g/kg combined with GC < 1.03 g/kg, GC had no obvious impact on the diuretic function of GS. When GS ≥ 0.93 g/kg was combined with GC ≥ 1.03 g/kg and GC : GS ≥ 1.11 : 1, GC exerted an antagonistic effect to GS, as illustrated in Figures 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d). These findings based on stepwise multiple regression analysis were consistent with experimental validation as shown in Figure 5 and represented the GS/GC-antagonism group [G/C-a, ratio of GS and GC was 1/1.11 (0.93 g/kg : 1.03 g/kg, n=8)] and the GS/GC-synergy group [G/C-s, ratio of GS and GC was 1/0.39 (0.69 g/kg : 0.27 g/kg, n=8)].Figure 5
Changes in body weight (a), ascites volume (b), abdominal circumference (c), and ascites volume/body weight (d) in H22 HCC ascites model group (Mod,n=9), GS/GC combination-antagonism group (G/C-a, GS : GC = 0.93 g/kg : 1.03 g/kg, n=8), GS/GC combination-synergistic effect group (G/C-s, GS : GC = 0.69 g/kg : 0.27 g/kg, n=8),Euphorbia kansui treatment groups [GS-1 (GS = 0.93 g/kg, n=9), GS-2 (GS = 0.69 g/kg, n=8)], and furosemide treatment group (Furo, 23 mg/kg, n=8). Data are represented as mean ± SE. P##<0.01, compared with the control group. P∗<0.05, compared with the model group; P∗∗<0.01, compared with the model group.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)


## 3.3. Liver and Kidney Toxicity of GS/GC Combinations in HCC Ascites Mice

The clinical use of GS is seriously restricted due to strong hepatic and renal toxicity. In TCM theory, GC has been used to reduce drug toxicity. Therefore, we sought to observe the toxicity levels of different GS/GC combinations on H22 ascites mice. As shown in Figure6(a), the serum AST and ALT levels were related to liver metabolism and were increased slightly in the model and various drug treatment groups compared with the control group. Furthermore, we observed that part of the cytoplasm was degenerated, with a few condensed nuclei, in the liver sections. No obvious differences were found between the various drug treatment groups and the model group (Figure 6(b)). Regarding renal toxicity, we found that the serum BUN and CREA levels were not altered significantly in any treatment groups (Figure 7(a)). Furthermore, no specific pathological changes were found in different groups. Most of the kidney cells maintained normal structure, without any degeneration or necrosis of the glomerulus or renal tubules induced by toxicants and immunological factors (Figure 7(b)). These findings suggested that the administration of GS and GC at different combination ratios did not aggravate hepatic or renal pathological changes in HCC ascites mice.Figure 6
Liver toxicity in H22 HCC ascites mice (a). Increases in ALT and AST were observed after modeling, without any significant difference between the treatment groups. (b) Evaluation of liver sections stained with H&E revealed no significant pathological features such as inflammation or necrosis in any groups, but hepatic cells turned partially fatty along with liquidation, regression, or disappearance of cytoplasm. Hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) staining, 400x magnification.P##<0.01, compared with the control group.
(a)
(b)Figure 7
Renal toxicity in H22 HCC ascites mice (a). Serum levels of BUN and CREA were not altered significantly in any treatment groups. (b) No specific pathological symptoms were detected in different groups. Most kidney cells retained normal structure, without any degeneration or necrosis and edema or swelling of glomerulus and renal tubules. Hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) staining, 400x magnification.
(a)
(b)


## 3.4. GS and GC Regulate AVPR2 and AQP2 Expression

The data obtained from immunohistochemistry, ELISA, Western blot, and real-time qPCR analyses showed that the combinations of GS and GC could effectively regulate the expression of AVPR2 and AQP2, in ascites, sera, and renal tissues. The humanAVPR2 (arginine vasopressin receptor 2) gene, located on chromosome Xq28, belongs to the seven-transmembrane-domain G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily, which is localized to the basolateral side of the principal cell of the renal collecting duct [27]. The primary function of AVPR2 is to respond to the pituitary hormone arginine vasopressin (AVP) by stimulating mechanisms that concentrate the urine and maintain water homeostasis in the organism [28]. The antidiuretic effect of arginine vasopressin (AVP) is mediated predominantly by the binding of AVP to AVPR2, leading to receptor activation and interaction of AVPR2 with the cytosolic G protein, GαS, and subsequent activation of adenylate cyclase. Subsequently, the elevated cAMP levels trigger a cascade of intracellular events, including protein kinase A (PKA) activation and translocation of vesicles containing the water channel aquaporin-2 (AQP2) from the intracellular storage compartments to the apical surface of the principal cells [29]. More interestingly, AVPR2 has been recognized as a therapeutic target for the treatment of malignant ascites. Growing evidence indicates that several AVPR2 antagonists, such as satavaptan, tolvaptan, and lixivaptan, improve the control of ascites in cirrhosis [30–32]. In addition, the humanAQP2 gene, mapped to chromosome 12q12.13, encodes AQP2, a vasopressin-regulated water channel, which controls the permeability of renal collecting ducts to water and plays a pivotal role in maintaining body water balance [33]. The channel is regulated by the peptide hormone AVP, which exerts its effects via AVPR2. AQP2 expression is associated with short-term plasma membrane vesicle-mediated changes. However, long-termAQP2 gene expression alters fluid reabsorption from urine in the kidneys [34]. The mutations of AVPR2 and AQP2 genes are recognized by authorities as the important causes of some kidney diseases, such as nephrogenic diabetes insipidus [35, 36]. Growing evidence shows that the dysregulation of AVPR2 and AQP2 axis might result in the disruption of water homeostasis.In the current study, the expression of AVPR2 and AQP2 in the ascites, sera, and kidney tissues obtained from the GS-1/2 and GS/GC-synergy groups was significantly lower than those in the model control group (allP<0.05, Figures 8 and 9), indicating a diuretic role of the two drug combinations. These results also confirmed that the combination of GS and GC at a ratio of 1 : 0.39 exhibits synergistic effects on malignant ascites. However, the levels of AVPR2 and AQP2 in the ascites, sera (Figures 8(a) and 9(a)), and kidney tissues (Figures 8(b), 8(c), 8(d), 9(b), 9(c), and 9(d)) of the GS/GC-antagonism group showed no significant changes compared with those in the model control group, suggesting that the combination of GS and GC at a ratio of 1 : 1.11 exhibits antagonistic effects on malignant ascites.Figure 8
Effects of GS and GC on AVPR2 expression in serum and ascites assessed by ELISA (a), quantitative immunohistochemistry (b), Western blot (c), and real-time PCR (d). Data are represented as mean ± SE.P∗,∗∗<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively, compared with the model group; P##<0.01, compared with the control group.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)Figure 9
Quantification of the effects of GS and GC on AQP2 expression in serum and ascites using ELISA (a), quantitative immunohistochemistry (b), Western blot of protein (c), and real-time qPCR of mRNA (d). Data are represented as mean ± SE.P∗,∗∗<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively, compared with the model group; P#,##<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively, compared with the control group.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)


## 4. Conclusions

Our data provide convincing evidence that GS and GC in different combinations or ratios exert synergistic or antagonistic effects on HCC ascites, which is partially mediated via regulating the expression of AVPR2 and AQP2.



---

*Source: 7620817-2016-05-09.xml*