Figures & data
Figure 1. Venn diagram of the intersection of the potential QGSTW and memory disorder targets. The targets in the yellow circle are the potential QGSTW targets, and those in the blue circle are the potential memory disorder targets.
Figure 2. Functional enrichment analysis. (A) KEGG pathway analysis. The Y-axis represents the main pathway, and the X-axis represents the enrichment score. (B) GO biological processes. (C) GO molecular functions. (D) GO cellular components. The Y-axis represents the enrichment count of the target, and the X-axis represents the enrichment score.
Figure 3. Protein–protein interaction (PPI) network and cluster analysis of the disease targets. (A) PPI network of the common targets. The orange nodes in the middle represent the target genes; the darker the color and the larger the node is, the greater the degree value. (B–E) Top four clustering graphs for the PPI network of common targets.
Table 1. Cluster information for the memory disorder protein–protein interaction (PPI) network.
Figure 4. Compound-disease-target network. The yellow triangle represents QGSTW, the yellow V represents memory disorder, the hexagons represent herbs in QGSTW, the blue round rectangles represent the active components of QGSTW, the dark blue circles represent the potential targets, and the purple diamonds represent the top 10 enriched KEGG pathways.
Table 2. The top 10 active components in terms of degree value.
Figure 5. Molecular docking study of the top 5 target genes with the active components predicted by network pharmacology. The docking of AKT1 (a), GRIN1 (B), GRIN2B (C), GRM5 (D) and QGSTW. The protein targets that bind to the ligands are in the shape of blue rods, and the binding sites are connected by purple hydrogen bonds. The length of the hydrogen bond is indicated next to the bond.
Table 3. The docking information of targets with QGSTW.
Figure 6. QGSTW alleviates cognitive decline in d-galactose-injured mice. (A) Schematic of the novel location test (NLT) for assessing spatial learning. The discrimination index (B), total exploration time (C) and percentage exploration time (D) in the novel location test are shown. (E) Schematic of the novel object recognition (nor) test. The discrimination index (F), total exploration time (G) and percentage exploration time (H) in the novel object recognition test are shown. (I, M) Schematic of the active avoidance (AA) test. The number of CRs (J), the mean latency to a CR (N), and the difference in CR number (K, L) and the mean latency (O, P) between the first and second days are shown. Compared with the control group: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Compared with the model group: #p < 0.05; ##p < 0.01; ###p < 0.001. One-way ANOVA and two-way ANOVA were used for data analyses. The data are presented as the mean ± SEM (n = 3–6 mice per group).
Figure 7. Effects of QGSTW on the protein expression levels of AKT, c-Fos, GluN1, GluA1, CaMKII-α, PKA, CREB, and cAMP in d-galactose-injured mice. (A) Western blotting was performed to measure the protein expression of PKA and CREB. Quantitative analysis of the protein expression of PKA (B) and CREB (C). Representative immunoblot (D) and quantification of AKT (E) and c-Fos (F) levels in mice. (G) Representative Western blots and histograms showing the total protein levels of GluN1 (H), GluA1 (I), and CaMKII-α (J) in mice. (K) cAMP levels were analyzed by ELISA. Compared with the control group: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Compared with the model group: #p < 0.05; ##p < 0.01; ###p < 0.001. One-way ANOVA was used for all data analyses. The data are presented as the mean ± SEM (n = 3 mice per group).
Figure 8. Effects of QGSTW on the protein expression level of SYN in d-galactose-injured mice. (A) Representative Western blot and quantitative analysis of the protein expression level of SYN in the mouse hippocampus. (B–F) Representative immunofluorescence images of SYN (green, FITC) in different subregions of the hippocampus (scale bars: B = 100 μm; C–F = 50 μm). The nuclei were stained blue (DAPI). CA1: cornu ammonis 1; CA3: cornu ammonis 3; DG: dentate gyrus. Compared with the control group: *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01. Compared with the model group: #p < 0.05 and ##p < 0.01. One-way ANOVA was used for all data analyses. The data are presented as the mean ± SEM (n = 3 mice per group).
